APPENDIX A

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
This page intentionally left blank
Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 30, 2012

Photo used under Creative Commons from schizoform

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Final Alternatives Analysis Report i October 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.2 Purpose of and Need for the Study............................................................................ 1-1

1.2.1 Study Background ....................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.2 Purpose ....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.2.3 Need............................................................................................................ 1-4

1.3 Alternatives Analysis Review Process ....................................................................... 1-8

CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE ........................................................... 2-1

2.1 Speed and Travel Time.............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Stations...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Frequency.................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4 Infrastructure.............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.5 Phased Implementation ............................................................................................. 2-3

CHAPTER 3 RANGE OF ROUTE ALTERNATIVES........................................................................... 3-1

3.1 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Previously Established Routes................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Potential Combinations of Routes.............................................................................. 3-3

3.4 Summary.................................................................................................................... 3-3

CHAPTER 4 SCREENING METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Screening Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Purpose and Need....................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.3 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.4 Environmental Concerns ............................................................................. 4-2

4.2 Screening Process..................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Step 1 – Coarse-Level Screening................................................................ 4-3

4.2.2 Step 2 – Fine-Level Screening .................................................................... 4-6

CHAPTER 5 COARSE-LEVEL SCREENING...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Route Alternative 1 .................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 5-1

5.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 5-1

5.1.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges................................................ 5-2

5.1.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................... 5-2
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ii Final Alternatives Analysis Report

5.1.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way....................................................... 5-2

5.2 Route Alternative 2 .................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 5-3

5.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 5-3

5.2.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................... 5-3

5.2.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges................................................ 5-4

5.2.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................... 5-4

5.2.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way....................................................... 5-4

5.3 Route Alternative 3 .................................................................................................... 5-4

5.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 5-5

5.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 5-5

5.3.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................... 5-5

5.3.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges................................................ 5-5

5.3.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................... 5-6

5.3.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way....................................................... 5-6

5.4 Route Alternative 4 .................................................................................................... 5-6

5.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 5-7

5.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 5-7

5.4.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................... 5-7

5.4.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................... 5-8

5.4.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges................................................ 5-8

5.4.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................... 5-8

5.4.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way....................................................... 5-9

5.5 Route Alternative 5 .................................................................................................... 5-9

5.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 5-9

5.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 5-9

5.5.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................. 5-10

5.5.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 5-10

5.5.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges.............................................. 5-10

5.5.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................. 5-10

5.5.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 5-11

5.6 Route Alternative 4-A ............................................................................................... 5-11

5.6.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand .......................................................... 5-11

5.6.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................. 5-11

5.6.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................. 5-11

5.6.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 5-12
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Final Alternatives Analysis Report iii October 2012

5.6.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges.............................................. 5-12

5.6.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................. 5-12

5.6.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 5-12

5.7 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................. 5-13

5.7.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand .......................................................... 5-13

5.7.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................. 5-13

5.7.3 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................. 5-13

5.7.4 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 5-13

5.7.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges.............................................. 5-13

5.7.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas................................................. 5-13

5.7.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 5-14

5.8 Summary.................................................................................................................. 5-14

CHAPTER 6 FINE-LEVEL SCREENING............................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Route Alternative 1 .................................................................................................... 6-3

6.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 6-3

6.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 6-3

6.1.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity ............................... 6-4

6.1.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment.................................................. 6-5

6.1.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ................................................. 6-5

6.1.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings....................................... 6-5

6.1.7 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................... 6-5

6.1.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ....................................... 6-6

6.1.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way....................................................... 6-7

6.2 Route Alternative 2 .................................................................................................... 6-7

6.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand ............................................................ 6-7

6.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................... 6-7

6.2.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity ............................... 6-7

6.2.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment.................................................. 6-8

6.2.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ................................................. 6-9

6.2.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings....................................... 6-9

6.2.7 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 6-10

6.2.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6-10

6.2.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 6-11

6.3 Route Alternative 4 .................................................................................................. 6-11

6.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand .......................................................... 6-12

6.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................. 6-12

6.3.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity ............................. 6-12

6.3.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment................................................ 6-14
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 iv Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.3.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ............................................... 6-15

6.3.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings..................................... 6-15

6.3.7 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 6-16

6.3.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6-16

6.3.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 6-18

6.4 Route Alternative 5 .................................................................................................. 6-18

6.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand .......................................................... 6-18

6.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................. 6-18

6.4.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity ............................. 6-19

6.4.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment................................................ 6-19

6.4.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ............................................... 6-20

6.4.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings..................................... 6-20

6.4.7 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 6-21

6.4.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6-22

6.4.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 6-22

6.5 Route Alternative 4-A ............................................................................................... 6-23

6.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand .......................................................... 6-23

6.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................. 6-23

6.5.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity ............................. 6-23

6.5.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment................................................ 6-24

6.5.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ............................................... 6-25

6.5.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings..................................... 6-25

6.5.7 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 6-26

6.5.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6-27

6.5.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 6-28

6.6 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................. 6-28

6.6.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand .......................................................... 6-28

6.6.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes .................. 6-28

6.6.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity ............................. 6-28

6.6.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment................................................ 6-28

6.6.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures ............................................... 6-28

6.6.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings..................................... 6-29

6.6.7 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 6-29

6.6.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6-29

6.6.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way..................................................... 6-29

6.7 Summary.................................................................................................................. 6-29

6.7.1 Purpose and Need..................................................................................... 6-29

6.7.2 Technical Feasibility .................................................................................. 6-31
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Final Alternatives Analysis Report v October 2012

6.7.3 Economic Feasibility.................................................................................. 6-32

6.7.4 Environmental Concerns ........................................................................... 6-33

CHAPTER 7 REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD ................. 7-1

7.1 Results from the Coarse-Level Screening.................................................................. 7-1

7.2 Results from the Fine-Level Screening ...................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1 Route Alternative 1...................................................................................... 7-5

7.2.2 Route Alternative 2...................................................................................... 7-5

7.2.3 Route Alternative 3...................................................................................... 7-5

7.2.4 Route Alternative 4...................................................................................... 7-5

7.2.5 Route Alternative 5...................................................................................... 7-6

7.2.6 Route Alternative 4-A .................................................................................. 7-6

7.2.7 No-Build Alternative..................................................................................... 7-6

7.3 Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives....................................................................... 7-6

CHAPTER 8 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................................. 8-1

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 9-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Counties Traversed by Routes in the Study Area ............................................................... 1-2

Table 1-2. Population Change.............................................................................................................. 1-4

Table 1-3. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2020................................................................................ 1-5

Table 1-4. Population 65 Years of Age and Over................................................................................. 1-5

Table 3-1. Previously Established Passenger Rail Routes................................................................... 3-2

Table 4-1. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria ......................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-2. Fine-Level Screening Criteria.............................................................................................. 4-7

Table 5-1. Route Alternative Comparison .......................................................................................... 5-15

Table 6-1. Route Alternative 1 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer .............................. 6-6

Table 6-2. Route Alternative 2 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer ............................ 6-11

Table 6-3. Route Alternative 4 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer ............................ 6-17

Table 6-4. Route Alternative 5 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer ............................ 6-22

Table 6-5. Route Alternative 4-A Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer......................... 6-27

Table 6-6. Stage 1 Forecast Results for Proposed Chicago-Omaha Passenger Rail Options........... 6-30

Table 6-7. Comparative Running Times............................................................................................. 6-30

Table 6-8. Implementation Cost and Forecasted Revenue ($ millions) of Route Alternatives............ 6-32

Table 6-9. Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer for Route Alternatives......................... 6-34

Table 7-1. Route Alternative Comparison ............................................................................................ 7-3

Table 7-2. Implementation Alternatives to be Evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS............................................ 7-7
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 vi Final Alternatives Analysis Report

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Previously Established Routes..................................... 1-9

Figure 2-1. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Illustrative Passenger Train Stringline.......................... 2-3

Figure 3-1. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Route Alternatives........................................................ 3-5

Figure 4-1. Distance Required for One Train Overtaking Another Train ............................................ 4-17

Figure 5-1. Route Alternative 1, Relative Population Served at Potential Stations............................. 5-17

Figure 5-2. Route Alternative 2, Relative Population Served at Potential Stations............................. 5-18

Figure 5-3. Route Alternative 3, Relative Population Served at Potential Stations............................. 5-19

Figure 5-4. Route Alternative 4, Relative Population Served at Potential Stations............................. 5-20

Figure 5-5. Route Alternative 5, Relative Population Served at Potential Stations............................. 5-21

Figure 5-6. Route Alternative 4-A, Relative Population Served at Potential Stations ......................... 5-22

Figure 6-1. Freight Train Overtake Events Required at Different Passenger Train Speeds............... 6-35

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment A Fare Structure

Attachment B Modal Comparison Documentation

Attachment C Train Overtake Distance Calculations

Attachment D Cost Index Ranking

Attachment E Comments and Responses
Chapter 1

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Introduction

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 1-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), in conjunction with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) and Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois DOT), is 

evaluating alternatives for the expansion of intercity passenger rail service from Chicago, 

Illinois, through Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska (the Project). Iowa 

DOT’s evaluation will be documented in the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail 

System Planning Study (the Study) Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). 

This report describes the initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration for the 

Study, the screening methodology and criteria used to evaluate these route alternatives, the 

results of the alternatives analysis, and agency and public input on the alternatives analysis. 

Through a two-step screening process, preliminary service planning elements were analyzed 

to identify the range of route alternatives that will be considered in the Tier 1 EIS, which will

be prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The 

Tier 1 EIS will evaluate potential impacts of route alternatives carried forward from the 

screening process for detailed analysis and comparison. In addition, a No-Build Alternative 

will be retained for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS to allow equal comparison to the route 

alternatives carried forward and to help decision makers and the public understand the 

consequences of taking no action. Ultimately, Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, and FRA will select 

one route alternative based on the detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS and input from 

resource agencies and the public. 

This report is organized as follows: 

• Chapter 1, Introduction – Defines the purpose of and need for the Study, describes 

the Study Area, and provides an overview of the alternatives analysis review 

process.

• Chapter 2, Description of the Proposed Service – Describes the proposed 

passenger rail service to be provided by the selected route alternative.

• Chapter 3, Identification of a Range of Route Alternatives – Describes the 

previously established passenger rail routes in the Study Area and the range of 

route alternatives to be evaluated using the screening methodology discussed in 

Chapter 4. 

• Chapter 4, Screening Methodology – Describes the screening criteria and the 

screening process for both coarse- and fine-level screening. 

• Chapter 5, Coarse-Level Screening – Presents the results of coarse-level screening

and identifies the route alternatives carried forward for fine-level screening. 

• Chapter 6, Fine-Level Screening – Presents the results of fine-level screening and 

identifies the route alternatives carried forward for evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS. 

• Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives Carried Forward – Summarizes

the route alternatives carried forward from coarse- and fine-level screening for 

detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS. 
Chapter 1

Introduction Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 1-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

• Chapter 8, Comments and Coordination – Describes opportunities for agency and 

public input and summarizes input received. 

• Chapter 9, References – Provides detailed information on the sources used to 

prepare this Final Alternatives Analysis Report. 

1.1 STUDY AREA

The Chicago to Omaha corridor (the Corridor) extends from Chicago Union Station, in 

downtown Chicago, Illinois, on the east to a terminal in Omaha, Nebraska, on the west. The 

Study Area consists of the five previously established passenger rail routes between Chicago 

and Omaha that pass through the states of Illinois and Iowa (see Figure 1-1). The Study Area 

for each route is approximately 500 miles long and 500 feet wide. In Illinois, the Study Area 

runs generally west from Chicago Union Station, which is the hub for the Midwest Regional 

Rail Initiative (MWRRI) to the Mississippi River and, depending on the route, is a distance 

of between 150 and 250 miles. In Iowa, the Study Area runs west from the Mississippi River 

for approximately 300 miles across the entire state of Iowa to the Missouri River. In 

Nebraska, the Study Area terminates in Omaha, which is located at the Missouri River, the 

eastern border of the state. The general location for the terminal in Omaha will be identified 

as part of this Study. For each route, the counties that are traversed in Illinois, Iowa, and 

Nebraska are listed east to west in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1. Counties Traversed by Routes in the Study Area

State Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5

Illinois

Cook

DuPage

Kane

DeKalb

Boone

Winnebago

Stephenson

Jo Daviess

Cook

DuPage

Kane

DeKalb

Ogle

Lee

Whiteside

Cook

DuPage

Kane

DeKalb

Ogle

Carroll

Cook

Will

Grundy

La Salle

Bureau

Henry

Rock Island

Cook

DuPage

Kane

Kendall

DeKalb

La Salle

Bureau

Henry

Knox

Warren

Henderson

Iowa

Dubuque

Delaware

Buchanan

Black Hawk

Butler

Franklin

Hardin

Hamilton

Webster

Calhoun

Sac

Crawford

Harrison

Pottawattamie

Clinton

Cedar

Linn

Benton

Tama

Marshall

Story

Boone

Greene

Carroll

Crawford

Harrison

Pottawattamie

Jackson

Clinton

Jones

Linn

Benton

Tama

Marshall

Story

Boone

Dallas

Guthrie

Carroll

Crawford

Shelby

Harrison

Pottawattamie

Scott

Muscatine

Cedar

Johnson

Iowa

Poweshiek

Jasper

Polk

Dallas

Madison

Guthrie

Adair

Cass

Pottawattamie

Des Moines

Henry

Jefferson

Wapello

Monroe

Lucas

Clarke

Union

Adams

Montgomery

Mills

Pottawattamie

Nebraska Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas
Chapter 1

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Introduction

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 1-1 October 2012

1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE STUDY

1.2.1 Study Background

The existing rail lines that are proposed to be used to provide passenger service from 

Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska, were all in place by 1871 (Colton, 

1871) and are among the oldest rail lines in the region. The railroads were initially 

constructed to carry passengers and to haul a variety of freight and have evolved into very 

busy railroads (Hudson, 2005). Most of the passenger service along these routes began in the 

1850s, 1860s, and 1870s (Young, 2005). By the 1880s, commuter rail service in Chicago had 

been developed in a hub-and-spoke1

 pattern, extending 30 to 40 miles in 15 different 

directions from downtown Chicago (Conzen, 2005). This hub-and-spoke system is still 

operating today as Chicago’s Metra (Young, 2005). Intercity passenger rail service generally 

was terminated by the 1970s, when railroad passenger service declined nationally, and was 

consolidated into Amtrak (Hudson, 2005). In the Chicago metropolitan area, the section 

between Chicago and Naperville, Illinois, carries the heaviest volume of commuters 

(Hudson, 2005). 

The MWRRI was established in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Public Law [PL] 102-240) and its reauthorization in 1998 

with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (PL 105-178). ISTEA and 

TEA-21 included a broader national effort to support high-speed rail investment. Nine 

transportation agencies across the Midwest, along with Amtrak, sponsored the MWRRI: 

• Illinois Department of Transportation 

• Indiana Department of Transportation 

• Iowa Department of Transportation

• Michigan Department of Transportation

• Minnesota Department of Transportation 

• Missouri Department of Transportation 

• Nebraska Department of Roads

• Ohio Rail Development Commission

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

As a result of the MWRRI and the national high-speed rail initiative, numerous corridors 

were identified and refined, with Chicago as the hub. Between 1996 and 2004, a single 

transportation plan was developed that included all of these corridors; this plan is known as 

the Midwest Regional Rail System. Meanwhile, numerous studies were completed with 

regard to bus service integration with the MWRRI; financial, economic, market, and 

transportation analysis; infrastructure and capital costs; operating costs; and institutional and 

organizational issues. These efforts culminated in 2004, when the MWRRI issued the 

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook (MWRRI, June 2004) and the Midwest 

Regional Rail System: A Transportation Network for the 21st Century, Executive Report

(MWRRI, September 2004). 

 

1

 A hub-and–spoke passenger rail system provides transportation to a central location. From this central 

location (the hub), one can travel to various other destinations (the spokes).
Chapter 1

Introduction Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 1-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Since 2004, efforts have progressed to develop the various corridors. In 2006, the Midwest 

Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook, Chapter 11, Benefit Cost and Economic Analysis, 

was updated to reflect economic conditions at that time (MWRRI, November 2006). The 

nine passenger rail corridors in the Midwest Regional Rail System are: 

• Chicago to Detroit/Grand Rapids/Port Huron, Michigan 

• Chicago to Cleveland, Ohio 

• Chicago to Cincinnati, Ohio 

• Chicago to Carbondale, Illinois 

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri 

• St. Louis, Missouri, to Kansas City, Missouri 

• Chicago to Quincy, Illinois 

• Chicago to Omaha, Nebraska

• Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and to St. Paul, Minnesota/Green Bay, 

Wisconsin 

In 2009 and 2010, Iowa DOT and Illinois DOT, in conjunction with FRA, evaluated 

alternatives for the corridor extending from Chicago Union Station to Iowa City, Iowa, with 

the completion of the Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service Tier 1 Service 

Level Environmental Assessment. On October 28, 2010, FRA awarded Iowa DOT and 

Illinois DOT a grant of $230 million to proceed with the Chicago to Iowa City corridor 

Tier 2 Project Level studies and construction activities. 

In 2010 and 2011, additional studies were completed for the MWRRI prior to 

commencement of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study. These studies included MWRRI corridor alternatives analysis, capital cost 

updates, operating equipment configurations and performance standards, advanced train 

control, and public outreach (MWRRI, 2011). The Chicago to Omaha corridor was included 

in these studies. 

The MWRRI includes many high-speed (that is, 110 miles per hour [mph]) passenger rail 

corridors, but the MWRRI initially identified the service between Chicago and Omaha for 

conventional-speed (that is, 79 mph) and not high-speed service. The 2010 and 2011 studies 

expanded the analysis to include five round-trips per day to Des Moines and four round-trips 

per day to Council Bluffs-Omaha (MWRRI, 2011). Subsequent to these studies, Iowa DOT 

and FRA concluded that analysis for speeds up to 110 mph is warranted for the Chicago to 

Omaha Corridor. The Project includes a maximum of seven round-trips per day at maximum 

authorized track speeds of up to 110 mph between Chicago and Council Bluffs-Omaha. 

As stated in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook (MWRRI, June 2004), 

full implementation of the MWRRI would significantly improve Midwest passenger rail 

service by:

• Upgrading existing rail lines to permit frequent, reliable, high-speed passenger 

train operations 

• Accommodating operation of a hub-and-spoke passenger rail system that provides 

through-service and connectivity in Chicago to locations throughout the Midwest 

region
Chapter 1

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Introduction

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 1-3 October 2012

• Introducing modern train equipment that offers improved amenities operating at 

speeds of up to 110 mph 

• Providing multimodal connections and feeder bus systems to improve access to 

the rail system

• Introducing a contracted rail operation that improves efficiency, reliability, and 

on-time performance

With full implementation (estimated to occur in 2025), the Midwest Regional Rail System 

would encompass approximately 3,000 route miles in the sponsor states and would attract 

approximately 13.6 million passengers annually. Approximately 90 percent of the Midwest 

region’s population would be within an hour’s ride of a Midwest Regional Rail System rail 

station and/or within 30 minutes of a Midwest Regional Rail System feeder bus station 

(MWRRI, September 2004). 

On October 14, 2011, FRA agreed to a phased implementation approach for the Chicago to 

Iowa City corridor. Illinois DOT is proceeding with the Tier 2 studies and construction 

activities for the portion of the corridor extending from Chicago to Quad Cities (East Moline, 

Moline, and Rock Island, Illinois, and Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa) with a terminus in 

Moline, Illinois. Iowa DOT would conduct Tier 2 studies for the portion of the corridor from 

the Quad Cities to Iowa City. 

While the Chicago to Iowa City service and Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service may 

ultimately use the same corridor from Chicago to Iowa City for implementation, the level of 

service under consideration is different. From Chicago to Iowa City, service was evaluated 

for Tier 1 at a maximum of 5 round-trip trains per day at speeds up to 79 mph, while the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service is being evaluated for a maximum of 7 round-trip 

trains per day at speeds up to 110 mph. The higher maximum speed and frequency of service 

for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service would result in additional impacts, and, 

therefore, require additional study. For analysis purposes in this Tier 1 EIS, the passenger rail 

service from Chicago to the Quad Cities is assumed to be constructed and in operation. 

1.2.2 Purpose

The Project and the Midwest Regional Rail System are intended “to meet current and future 

regional travel needs through significant improvements to the level and quality of passenger 

rail service,” as defined by the MWRRI in its Midwest Regional Rail System Executive 

Report (MWRRI, September 2004). The Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

would provide competitive passenger rail transportation between Chicago and Omaha to help 

meet future travel demands in the Study Area. The Project would create a competitive rail 

transportation alternative to the available automobile, bus, and air service and would meet 

needs for more efficient travel between major urban centers by:

• Decreasing travel times

• Increasing frequency of service

• Improving reliability

• Providing an efficient transportation option 

• Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort 
Chapter 1

Introduction Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 1-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

• Promoting environmental benefits, including reduced air pollutant emissions, 

improved land use options, and fewer adverse impacts on surrounding habitat and 

water resources

1.2.3 Need

The need for the Project stems from the increasing travel demand resulting from population 

growth and changing demographics along the Corridor as well as the need for competitive 

and attractive modes of travel (MWRRI, June 2004). 

1.2.3.1 Travel Demand

Travel demand is the total demand for travel services in the Corridor. Between 2000 and 

2010, the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) have 

seen growth of 3.3 and 20.7 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). As shown in 

Table 1-2, the combined population in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska has increased by 14.8 

percent between 1970 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, March 27, 1995, and 2010). Not only 

is population increasing in the area, but it is also becoming more urbanized, with expanded 

access to and demands for public transportation (Iowa DOT, December 27, 2010). For 

example, Iowa has historically had a mostly rural population; however, in 2003, that trend 

shifted, and 60 percent of the population is projected to live in urban areas by 2030 (Iowa 

DOT, December 27, 2010). 

Table 1-2. Population Change

State Total Population Percent Increase 

Between 1970 and 2010 1970 2000 2010

Illinois 11,113,976 12,419,293 12,830,632 15.4

Iowa 2,824,376 2,926,324 3,046,355 7.9

Nebraska 1,483,493 1,711,263 1,826,341 23.1

Total 15,421,845 17,056,880 17,703,328 14.8

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, March 27, 1995, “County Population Census Counts 1900-90,” retrieved on 

December 5, 2011, http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts/index.html.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Census 2010, Summary File 1, Table P12: SEX BY AGE - Universe: Total 

population, generated by Kelly Farrell using American FactFinder, retrieved on December 19, 2011, 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html.

The predominant mode of travel in the region is the automobile. Highway access between 

Chicago and Omaha is provided through Interstate 80 (I-80) and Interstate 88 (I-88), portions 

of which are toll road, as well as a number of federal and state highways. Table 1-3 shows 

the total trips estimated by mode within the Corridor for the year 2000. 
Chapter 1

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Introduction

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 1-5 October 2012

Table 1-3. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2020

Mode of Travel Total Tripsa Percent of Total

Automobile 72,883,000 97.7%

Air 1,233,000 1.7%

Bus 359,000 0.4%

Passenger Rail 113,000 0.2%

Total 74,588,000 100%

Source: AECOM Ridership, Diversion, and Modal Split Forecast for 

Year 2020

Note: 

a Excludes short trips of less than 100 miles. 

The population is also aging and is increasingly seeking alternative modes of transportation. 

As shown in Table 1-4, between 2000 and 2010, the population of individuals who are 

65 years of age and over in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska has increased by 7.3, 3.8, and 

6.2 percent, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010). Within the Chicago and 

Omaha MSAs, the growth of the population of individuals who are 65 years of age and over, 

a population segment who tend to rely more on public transportation, is 8.2 and 25.9 percent 

higher, respectively, in 2010 compared to 2000 (Iowa DOT, 2012; Iowa DOT, December 27, 

2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010). 

Table 1-4. Population 65 Years of Age and Over

State

Total Population 65 Years of Age and Over 

(Percentage of Total Population) Percent Increase 

Between 2000 and 2010

2000 2010

Illinois 1,500,025 (12.1) 1,609,213 (12.5) 7.3

Iowa 436,213 (14.9) 452,888 (14.9) 3.8

Nebraska 232,195 (13.6) 246,677 (13.5) 6.2

Total 2,168,433 (12.7) 2,308,778 (13.0) 6.5

Chicago MSA 998,464 (10.9) 1,079,893 (11.4) 8.2

Omaha MSA 76,345 (10.6) 96,098 (11.1) 25.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Census 2010, Summary File 1, Table P12: SEX BY AGE - Universe: Total 

population, generated by Kelly Farrell using American FactFinder, retrieved on December 19, 2011, 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html.

1.2.3.2 Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Introducing intercity passenger rail service connecting major urban centers in the Corridor, 

which are the proposed station stops, would provide a competitive modal option for travel in 

the Corridor. The travelling public selects travel modes based on a combination of trip time, 

cost, and convenience. As shown in Table 1-3, approximately 98 percent of travel between 

city pairs in the Study Area is estimated to occur by automobile, with air, bus, and passenger 

rail travel making up the remainder. 

Intercity passenger rail service would provide an option to highway and air travel between 

major urban centers in the face of a growing and aging population and increasing congestion 
Chapter 1

Introduction Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 1-6 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

on Midwest highways and at Midwest airports. For example, highway vehicle miles traveled 

in Iowa have increased 37 percent since 1990, and I-80 in Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha 

currently experience peak-period congestion and capacity issues. Chicago O’Hare 

International Airport is the second busiest airport in the nation (Iowa DOT, 2012; U.S. DOT, 

January 2012). 

Travel modes available to the public along the Corridor include automobile, air, bus, and 

conventional-speed long-distance passenger rail. The primary automobile travel route is 

Interstate 88 (I-88) between Chicago and East Moline, approximately 160 miles, and 

Interstate 80 (I-80) between East Moline and Downtown Omaha, approximately 313 miles. 

From southern Chicago, the entire route along I-80 from Chicago to Omaha is approximately 

470 miles. A one-way trip by automobile between Chicago and Omaha along either of these 

routes at posted interstate speeds would take about 8 hours during off-peak hours. Using the 

current IRS standard of $0.555 per mile, the cost of driving round-trip between Omaha and 

Chicago with one day of parking in either Omaha ($5) or Chicago ($35) is $547.10 and 

$577.10, respectively (Attachment B).

I-80 is also a major truck route in the region. Between 2010 and 2030, vehicle miles traveled 

in Iowa on I-80 are expected to increase by more than 65 percent. If no capacity 

improvements are made, nearly 75 percent of I-80 in Iowa would be bordering on unstable 

traffic flow, at or beyond capacity (Iowa DOT, January 24, 2012). In Chicago, Des Moines, 

and Omaha, I-80 currently has peak-period congestion and capacity issues due to a 

volume/service flow ratio2

 greater than 0.95 that results in stop-and-go traffic conditions 

(FHWA, November 2010). The remainder of the Corridor is not currently experiencing 

substantial traffic congestion. By 2040, if no capacity improvements are made, the I-80 

corridor between Chicago and Omaha with the exception of rural parts of Illinois will be 

experiencing peak-period congestion issues due to a volume/service flow ratio greater than 

0.95 with stop-and-go traffic conditions (FHWA, November 2010). 

Air service is currently available between major cities in the Study Area. Commercial air 

service is provided in Chicago (Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Chicago Midway 

International Airport), Moline (Quad Cities International Airport), Des Moines (Des Moines 

International Airport), and Omaha (Eppley Airfield). Direct flight service between Chicago

and Omaha is served by American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and 

U.S. Airways. Typical flight times range from 1 hour and 20 minutes to 1 hour and 

40 minutes. Direct flight service between Chicago and Des Moines is served by American 

Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways. Typical flight times range 

from 1 hour and 15 minutes to 1 hour and 25 minutes. Direct flight service between Chicago 

and the Quad Cities is also served by American Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways. 

Typical flight times range from 52 minutes to 56 minutes. There is no direct service between 

Moline and Omaha or between Des Moines and Omaha; typical connections go through 

Chicago or Minneapolis. Between February 2011 and February 2012, the 17 daily flights 

 

2

 The volume/surface flow ratio represents the relationship between actual traffic volumes and the maximum 

capacity of the roadway. No roadway congestion is present when the volume/surface flow ratio is 0.0. 

Roadways are considered congested when the volume/surface flow ratio is between 0.75 and 0.95. A 

roadway with a volume/surface flow ratio of 0.95 to 1.0 has traffic volumes approaching or equal to the 

surface flow is considered to be highly congested, and experiences stop-and-go traffic conditions. 
Chapter 1

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Introduction

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 1-7 October 2012

between Chicago and Omaha were reliable an average of 79 percent of the time, with the 

other 21 percent of flights either delayed 15 minutes or more or cancelled (Attachment B). 

Tickets purchased with 2 weeks advanced notice typically cost between $210 and $1,400 

(Attachment B). 

Bus service is provided in a majority of mid-to-large sized cities, with intermittent service in 

smaller towns. Service between Chicago and Omaha, with multiple stops, was provided by 

Greyhound. Typical bus service includes two trips per day: one in the early morning and one 

in the late evening. Typical travel time by bus between Chicago and Omaha ranges from 

9 hours and 15 minutes for “Express” service to 9 hours and 40 minutes for regular service 

(Greyhound, July 2012). On August 15, 2012, Burlington Trailways took over the 

Greyhound routes from Omaha (though Greyhound is still maintaining the terminals), 

including the route from Omaha to Chicago, which features stops in Des Moines, Iowa City, 

Davenport, and Moline. Bus ticket prices vary from $40 to $126 (Attachment B). 

Megabus.com, a subsidiary of Coach USA, is a low-fare express bus service that recently 

added daily service between Chicago and Omaha with stops in Iowa City and Des Moines. 

Megbus.com provides two round-trips per day: one in the morning and one in the late 

evening. The full one-way trip from Chicago to Omaha takes 8 hours and 50 minutes. In 

addition to low fares, Megabus.com offers competitive amenities including Wi-Fi service, 

power ports at each seat, and on-board restrooms. However, Megabus.com does not always 

provide traditional sheltered station stops. In Chicago, the station stop is located adjacent to 

Union Station. In Omaha, the station stop is adjacent to the parking garage at Crossroads 

Mall (Megabus.com, undated). 

Current passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha is part of Amtrak’s long-distance 

service on the California Zephyr, which does not provide travel times that are competitive 

with other modes in the Study Area. Travel time from Chicago to Omaha on the current 

Amtrak long-distance, conventional-speed, service is approximately 8 hours and 55 minutes 

and travel time from Omaha to Chicago is approximately 9 hours and 36 minutes (Amtrak, 

November 7, 2011). Long-distance trains are designed for long-distance passengers and are 

often inconvenient for regional travelers. Tickets purchased with 2 weeks advanced notice 

typically cost $69 to travel from Chicago to Omaha and $108 to travel from Omaha to 

Chicago (Attachment B). In addition, the arrival and departure times in Omaha are late at 

night or early in the morning, which is not consistent with convenient intercity travel. The 

only major metropolitan community in Iowa that currently has access to passenger rail is 

Council Bluffs via the once-a-day Amtrak California Zephyr (Iowa DOT, December 27, 

2010). 

Inclement winter weather in the Study Area often creates conditions that impact both 

highway and air travel, creating a need for an alternative mode that is less prone to winter 

service interruptions. For example, winter storms (storms lasting 4 or more hours with 

snowfall rates of 0.20 inch per hour or more) in Iowa reduce traffic volumes by an average 

of 29 percent (ranging from 16 to 47 percent) depending on total snowfall and wind speeds 

(Knapp, Kroeger, and Giese, February 2000). 
Chapter 1

Introduction Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 1-8 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

1.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REVIEW PROCESS

Iowa DOT, in conjunction with FRA, hosted an online, open-house meeting in early 2012 for 

the public to discuss the scope of the Study and the initial range of route alternatives. In 

addition, agency scoping meetings were held in early 2012 to obtain comments from the 

federal and state resource agencies on potential purpose and need elements and the initial 

range of route alternatives. 

After the two-step screening process was completed, a second public meeting was held in 

May 2012 at three locations to obtain input from resource agencies and the public on 

preliminary results from the route alternatives screening. These meetings are described in 

more detail in Chapter 8. 

Another opportunity for resource agencies and the public to review route alternatives and the 

potential impacts associated with their implementation will be during the public comment 

period after the Tier 1 Draft EIS is published. 
!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Route 5

Iowa

Illinois

Wisconsin

Missouri

Minnesota

Nebraska

Ames Ames Elgin

Elgin

Omaha Omaha

Joliet Joliet

Slater Slater

DeKalb DeKalb

Naperville

Naperville

Moline Moline

Osceola Osceola

Clinton Clinton

Savanna Savanna

Chicago Chicago

Dubuque Dubuque

Rockford Rockford

Waterloo Waterloo

Galesburg Galesburg

Iowa City Iowa City

Burlington Burlington

Fort Dodge Fort Dodge

Des Moines Des Moines

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids

Council Bluffs Council Bluffs

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

1-1 Scale

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

0 25 50 12.5

I

Previously Established Routes

Miles

Legend

Route 1 (Canadian National Railway,

 former Illinois Central)

Route 2

(Union Pacific Railroad, 

former Chicago &

North Western)

Route 3

(Canadian Pacific Railway

and BNSF Railway,

former Milwaukee Road)

Route 3 Abandoned Portion

Route 4

(Iowa Interstate Railroad

and CSX Transportation,

former Rock Island)

Route 5

(BNSF Railway, former

Chicago, Burlington &

Quincy)
Chapter 1

Introduction Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 1-10 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 2

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Description of the Proposed Service

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 2-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE

Regardless of which route alternative is selected, the proposed passenger rail service between 

Chicago and Omaha would have several similar characteristics—speed and travel time, 

stations, frequency, infrastructure, and phased implementation. 

2.1 SPEED AND TRAVEL TIME

The initially proposed maximum speed of the passenger rail service is between 79 and 

110 miles per hour (mph). Operation of a passenger train at a maximum speed of 90 mph, 

with reductions in speed for curvature, bridges, urban areas, and other existing features, 

would result in scheduled travel times between Chicago and Omaha of approximately 7 to

8 hours. An automobile or bus requires between 8.5 and 10 hours to drive the approximately 

470 miles between Chicago’s downtown area and Omaha’s downtown area. Air service 

between Chicago and Omaha is approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes flying time, and a total 

downtown-to-downtime travel time of approximately 4 hours, 40 minutes (see Attachment B 

for detail on travel times of personal auto and commercial bus and airline service). Direct 

air service is available only between Chicago and Omaha and Chicago and some of the 

intermediate cities, but not from intermediate city to intermediate city. 

The passenger rail service would be designed for an on-time performance of 90 percent or 

better to provide a competitive option with personal automobile and commercial bus and 

airline service, which may have a lower reliability due to inclement weather and highway 

traffic congestion. The proposed Chicago terminus is Chicago Union Station, which is 

located in Chicago’s downtown core and is the hub station for Amtrak’s long-distance 

service and much of Chicago’s commuter-rail service, within walking distance of Chicago’s 

heavy-rail rapid-transit system, and served by Chicago’s bus system. Chicago Union Station 

is also the proposed hub for the Midwest Regional Rail System. The rapid-transit system 

provides direct service to Chicago’s two airports. Therefore, rail passengers would have 

direct access to Chicago’s downtown, and convenient direct connections to Chicago’s 

airports, shopping districts, universities, hospitals, and suburban areas. Several of the 

previously established rail routes pass through the downtown cores of the intermediate cities 

between Chicago and Omaha.

2.2 STATIONS

The stations at the endpoints of the proposed passenger rail service are Chicago and Omaha. 

The proposed station in Chicago is Chicago Union Station, which is the current hub for 

Amtrak intercity and regional trains serving Chicago, and the proposed hub for the Midwest 

Regional Rail System. A station location at Omaha has not yet been identified. Intermediate 

station stops are located on each route alternative at the largest intermediate cities, or as close 

as possible to the largest intermediate cities, in order to attract and serve the largest possible 

ridership. The intermediate station stops are different for each route alternative, as the route 

alternatives are geographically separated except at the endpoints of the Corridor. The number 

of station stops was identified with recognition that too many stops would make the overall 
Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed Service Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

travel time unacceptably long and less competitive with automobile travel times, thus 

reducing ridership. Likewise, station dwell times were kept to a minimum, to reduce overall 

travel times, which is common on corridor-type services where many travelers are making 

day-trips and most travelers tend to carry less baggage. 

2.3 FREQUENCY

The frequency of the proposed passenger rail service has been initially defined as five daily 

round trips between Chicago and Omaha. Experience with other similar corridor services in 

Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, California, and Washington has shown that more round trips 

increase ridership because passengers have more options for departure and arrival times; the 

increased convenience corresponds to increased ridership (Berger, March 1, 2012). The 

number of daily round trips also influences the technical complexity of the infrastructure 

required because more trains require more line capacity. For example, Figure 2-1 illustrates 

the locations where the five passenger trains in each direction must meet passenger trains 

traveling in the opposite direction. This figure shows mileage between Chicago and Omaha 

on the left vertical axis, siding locations on the right vertical axis, and hours in a day on the 

horizontal axis. Sidings must be constructed at the locations where trains meet if sidings or a 

second main track are not currently at the designated meet-pass locations and are not 

otherwise required for the capacity and reliability of existing freight train traffic or likely 

future freight train traffic.

2.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

Although the proposed passenger rail service would use existing infrastructure, additional 

track, signal, and structure infrastructure is likely to be necessary, to varying degrees, for 

each route alternative to provide adequate main track capacity and track quality for passenger 

trains to operate reliably and consistently at a speed as near to the proposed maximum speed 

as possible, and to mitigate any potential loss in existing freight capacity and freight capacity 

expansion potential. Sidings where passenger trains moving in opposite directions can meet 

and pass each other are likely to be required if existing sidings or double-track is insufficient, 

not at the required locations for the passenger-train meet/pass events, or needed for freight 

trains. 

A representation of the requirement for sidings is illustrated by the intersections of the lines 

representing a sample passenger train schedule in Figure 2-1. This figure shows the minimum 

locations where infrastructure would be needed for meet/pass events (where the diagonal 

lines intersect) for only passenger trains. The minimum distance is established by the spacing 

and aspect progression between railroad wayside signals, which, to help ensure safe 

operation of trains, controls how closely one train can follow another. The distance between 

signals is typically approximately 2 miles. The minimum practical distance between two 

unimpeded trains is typically not less than 8 miles; any closer distance, and the train behind 

must reduce speed according to the wayside signal aspects in the wake of the leading train.

As shown in Figure 2-1, the black siding locations are the minimum needed for scheduled 

passenger train meet/pass events; the open siding locations are potential locations where 

sidings could be provided to accommodate meet/pass events for a passenger train that is 

running behind schedule, which would avoid additional wait times of one hour or greater for 

a meet/pass event for the late-running train. Maintenance facilities and station tracks at some 
Chapter 2

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Description of the Proposed Service

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 2-3 October 2012

or all stations are also likely infrastructure requirements. Additional track, signal, and 

structure infrastructure may expand the footprint of the existing track, signal, and structure 

infrastructure. Expansion of footprint was identified and informed the identification of 

impacts on environmental, socioeconomic, and cultural resources. 

Notes: Black siding= scheduled passenger train meet location

Open siding= delayed passenger train meet location

Figure 2-1. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Illustrative Passenger Train Stringline

2.5 PHASED IMPLEMENTATION 

The proposed passenger rail service may be implemented in phases. These phases could 

incrementally extend the corridor geographically westward, add frequency of service, 

increase train speed, or add intermediate station stops within the Chicago to Omaha Corridor. 

Improvements required to implement phases could include: 

• Construction of track, signaling, structures and stations 

• Improvements to track and signaling to enable higher train speeds 

• Acquisition of additional equipment (locomotives and passenger cars) 

• Implementation of amenities at stations or on-board trains. 

Phased implementation of the passenger rail service would also allow Iowa DOT, Illinois 

DOT, and FRA to provide incremental benefits of the service by taking advantage of funding 

as it becomes available. 

DISTANCE 

(MILES)

TIME 

(HOURS)
Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed Service Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 2-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 3

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Range of Route Alternatives

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 3-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 3

RANGE OF ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

The Study evaluated potential route alternatives for the Corridor based on reviews of 

previous studies and also the ideas or concepts that were suggested by resource agencies or 

the public during the scoping process. 

The range of route alternatives includes the No-Build Alternative and existing or former 

freight-only or freight-passenger routes that may have been previously identified by the 

MWRRI and other studies, as opposed to entirely new construction on new ROW (that is, a 

greenfield route). The No-Build Alternative is included to provide a basis of comparison to 

the other route alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 Federal Register (FR) 28545). Although 

greenfield routes may offer the ability to provide much higher speeds than use of existing 

railroad alignments, development of greenfield routes can be much more expensive and more 

disruptive to the environment and to communities than adding capacity or improvements to 

existing rail routes. Greenfield route alternatives are thus unreasonable due to the cost of new 

ROW and the challenge of timely acquisition of property. Additionally, the environmental 

impacts of grading entirely new ROW, rather than expanding as needed along existing ROW, 

would cause more impact on the natural environment (and likely also on the human 

environment) than on-alignment route alternatives. The MWRRI previously determined that 

population densities in the Corridor were not sufficiently high to develop the ridership that 

might leverage the potentially higher cost of greenfield route alternatives. 

Potential route alternatives for the Corridor were identified by the MWRRI and the Iowa 

DOT 10 Year Strategic Passenger-Rail Plan (Iowa DOT, December 27, 2010). These 

previously established passenger rail routes in the Corridor are described in Section 3.2. 

In addition, combinations of these routes were considered, as discussed in Section 3.3. These 

combinations or “hybrid” routes are possible where two other routes cross; at the crossing 

point, a connection would be established between the routes. 

3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would consist of operating the current trackage and operations 

with the present level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track 

configuration or operating conditions. 

3.2 PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED ROUTES

The previously established passenger rail routes in the Corridor, listed from north to south, 

are the Illinois Central, Chicago & North Western, Milwaukee Road, Rock Island, and 

Burlington (see Figure 1-1). In this Study, these five previously established passenger rail 

routes have been identified by a designator number, as shown in Table 3-1. 
Chapter 3

Range of Route Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Table 3-1. Previously Established Passenger Rail Routes

Route Number Original Operator Current Operator and Route

1 Illinois Central Canadian National Railway via Rockford, Illinois, and 

Dubuque, Waterloo, and Fort Dodge, Iowa

2 Chicago & North Western Union Pacific Railroad via Clinton, Cedar Rapids, and Ames, 

Iowa

3 Milwaukee Road

Canadian Pacific Railroad from Chicago to Sabula, Iowa, and 

BNSF Railway from Bayard, Iowa, to Omaha, and abandoned 

except for several small stubs in between

4 Rock Island

CSX Transportation from Chicago to Utica, Illinois, and Iowa 

Interstate Railroad via Moline, Illinois, and Iowa City and 

Des Moines, Iowa

5 Burlington BNSF Railway via Galesburg, Illinois, and Burlington and 

Ottumwa, Iowa

The previously established routes hosted intercity passenger service between Chicago and 

Omaha prior to the establishment of Amtrak on May 1, 1971. The Burlington route (Route 

Alternative 5) was the only route on which passenger service continued under Amtrak 

between Chicago and Omaha after April 30, 1971. The Rock Island route (Route

Alternative 4) offered passenger service between Chicago and the Quad Cities as a 

continuation of prior service until 1978. Currently, the Burlington route (Route Alternative 5)

hosts Illinois intercity passenger trains between Chicago and Galesburg, Illinois, and the 

Amtrak California Zephyr between Chicago and Emeryville, California, via Omaha. 

Each of the five previously established passenger rail routes holds the potential of providing 

the required time-competitive, reliable service in the Corridor between Chicago and Omaha. 

Although a portion of the Milwaukee Road route (Route Alternative 3) between Sabula and 

Bayard, Iowa, has been abandoned, Route Alternative 3 was included in the Study because it 

bears enough similarity to the other route alternatives that surround it geographically that it 

could be time competitive if the missing portion were reconstructed. In addition, the 

populations that could possibly be served were identified as was the potential for ridership on 

each route. 

All route alternatives are owned and operated by freight railroads, except for the abandoned 

portion of the Milwaukee Road route (Route Alternative 3) between Sabula and Bayard, 

Iowa, and portions of several route alternatives within the Chicago metropolitan area. These 

include: trackage at Chicago Union Station, which is owned by Amtrak; the former 

Milwaukee Road route between Chicago Union Station and Elgin, which is owned by the 

Regional Transportation Authority (Illinois) and operated by Metra (Canadian Pacific retains 

freight trackage rights); and the former Rock Island from La Salle Street Station to Joliet, 

also owned by the Regional Transportation Authority (Illinois). All of the routes host Metra 

commuter trains within the Chicago metropolitan area. At present, there are no other 

commuter operations within the Corridor. Most of the routes host trackage or haulage rights 

for other freight railroads on some or all portions of the route. 
Chapter 3

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Range of Route Alternatives

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 3-3 October 2012

3.3 POTENTIAL COMBINATIONS OF ROUTES

As discussed in MWRRI studies (June 2004, September 2004, and 2011), combinations of 

routes are possible where the previously established passenger rail routes converge, and in 

some cases cross, as they approach Chicago or Omaha. There are several reasons to consider 

a combination of routes; chief among them are opportunities to increase ridership, decrease 

travel time, and decrease technical and economic challenges.

The MWRRI and the Iowa DOT 10 Year Strategic Passenger-Rail Plan considered a 

combination of the Rock Island and Burlington routes (Route Alternatives 4 and 5, 

respectively). In addition, this combination of routes was selected under the Chicago to Iowa 

City Intercity Passenger Rail Service Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment (FRA, 

Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT, September 2009), which evaluated the Chicago-Moline-Iowa 

City service by proposing to construct a connection where the two routes cross at Wyanet, 

Illinois. Other rail studies that include portions of this combination of Route Alternatives 4 

and 5 from Chicago to Omaha are ongoing. For example, Tier 2 NEPA documents are in the 

preliminary stages for service from Chicago to Moline, Illinois, with funding in place and 

planned implementation in 2015. This service will use a combination of Route Alternatives 4 

and 5. 

This combination of Route Alternatives 4 and 5 is also being considered in this Study and is 

called Route Alternative 4-A. Route Alternative 4-A consists of Route Alternative 5 (the 

former Burlington, now BNSF) between Chicago Union Station and Wyanet, Illinois, where 

Route Alternative 5 and Route Alternative 4 cross, and Route Alternative 4 (the former Rock 

Island, now Iowa Interstate Railroad [IAIS]) between Wyanet and Omaha.

Conversely, other potential combinations evaluated in the MWRRI, such as a combination of 

the former Milwaukee Road (now Canadian Pacific Railroad [CP]) route (Route 

Alternative 3) and the former Illinois Central (now Canadian National Railway [CN]) route 

(Route Alternative 1) or a combination of Route Alternative 3 and the former Chicago & 

North Western (now Union Pacific Railroad [UP]) route (Route Alternative 2), would not 

serve to substantially reduce travel time, increase population served, or decrease technical 

challenges, and thus were not evaluated further. Consequently, only the combination of 

Route Alternatives 4 and 5 as Route Alternative 4-A was deemed worthy of additional 

evaluation in this alternatives analysis. Route Alternative 4-A is described in more detail in 

Chapter 5. 

3.4 SUMMARY

The No-Build Alternative, described in Section 3.1, the five previously established passenger 

rail routes in the Corridor (Route Alternatives 1 through 5), described in Section 3.2, and the 

combination of Route 4 and Route 5 (Route Alternative 4-A), discussed in Section 3.3, 

compose the initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration for the Study. 

These route alternatives are shown in Figure 3-1. 
Chapter 3

Range of Route Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

Route Alternative 1

Route Alternative 2

Route Alternative 3

Route Alternative 4/4-A

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 5/4-A

Marion Marion

Iowa

Illinois

Wisconsin

Missouri

Minnesota

Nebraska

Ames Ames Elgin

Elgin

Omaha Omaha

Joliet Joliet

Slater Slater

DeKalb DeKalb

Naperville

Naperville

Moline Moline

Osceola Osceola

Clinton Clinton

Savanna Savanna

Chicago Chicago

Dubuque Dubuque

Rockford Rockford

Waterloo Waterloo

Galesburg Galesburg

Iowa City Iowa City

Burlington Burlington

Fort Dodge Fort Dodge

Des Moines Des Moines

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids

Council Bluffs Council Bluffs

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Scale

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

0 25 50 12.5

I

Route Alternatives

Miles

Legend

Route Alternative 1

Route Alternative 2

Route Alternative 3

Route Alternative 3 - Abandoned Portion 

Route Alternative 4

Route Alternative 4-A

(Combination of Portions

of Route Alternatives

4 and 5)

Route Alternative 5

3-1
Chapter 3

Range of Route Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-6 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 4

SCREENING METHODOLOGY

The screening methodology described herein was provided to Iowa DOT and FRA for review 

and comment, revised in response to comments, and then presented during Study scoping. 

Comments derived from the scoping process were used to modify the screening methodology

as applicable. The final methodology was implemented during the two-step screening process

as described in this report. 

The screening methodology comprises screening criteria and the screening process. The 

screening process included two steps: an initial coarse-level screening to identify whether 

any route alternative is hindered by major challenges (and would thus be eliminated from 

further evaluation) and a subsequent fine-level screening to evaluate each route alternative in 

greater quantitative and qualitative detail. This two-step screening process was used to screen

route alternatives that do not meet the purpose of and need for the Study and/or have greater 

environmental, physical, or right-of-way (ROW) constraints compared to one or more other 

route alternatives. Alternatives that remain after the two-step screening process will be 

carried forward for detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. This two-step screening 

process is intended to allow the Tier 1 EIS to focus on only those route alternatives that are 

reasonable and feasible. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines reasonable 

alternative as “those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint 

and using common sense rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant” 

(48 FR 34263). Feasible alternatives are those that are “capable of being carried out” 

(Merriam-Webster, 2012). 

4.1 SCREENING CRITERIA

The screening process for evaluating and eventually selecting reasonable and feasible route 

alternatives to carry forward for detailed consideration in the Tier 1 EIS relied on four broad 

screening criteria that were used for coarse- and fine-level screening. These four criteria are 

noted below, with Table 4-1 identifying and describing subcriteria for coarse-level screening, 

and Table 4-2 identifying and describing subcriteria for fine-level screening: 

• Meeting the purpose and need for passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Omaha (this is a critical criterion under NEPA because those alternatives that 

don’t meet the underlying purpose and need for a project are eliminated from 

further consideration) 

• Technical feasibility (this criterion addresses physical and operational 

considerations for a project) 

• Economic feasibility (this criterion applies to economic considerations of 

anticipated revenue and costs)

• Environmental concerns (this criterion considers whether there would be 

substantial concerns with respect to impacts on the natural and human 

environment) 

These screening criteria were used to compare the merits and drawbacks of each route 

alternative during both levels of the two-step screening process and are described below. 
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

4.1.1 Purpose and Need

A Purpose and Need Statement for Public and Agency Scoping was prepared to describe the 

purpose of and need for the Study. The Purpose and Need Statement will eventually be 

expanded into Chapter 1 of the Tier 1 EIS, which will provide additional detail and 

incorporate input received from agencies and the public during the scoping process. The 

Study’s purpose and need will be used as a benchmark for evaluating and comparing the 

range of route alternatives in the Tier 1 EIS. Therefore, each proposed route alternative will 

be evaluated based the on following factors related to the purpose and need:

• Travel demand in the Corridor (both existing and potential for the next 20 years) 

resulting from population growth and changing demographics 

• Competitive and attractive travel modes, including competitive travel times and 

convenience 

4.1.2 Technical Feasibility

Each proposed route alternative was evaluated to determine if it is feasible with respect to 

technical considerations. Screening included a high-level analysis (initial, gross assessment 

for establishing preliminary estimates) of physical route characteristics; infrastructure 

requirements to achieve the desired passenger train speed, schedule, and reliability;

infrastructure required to obtain necessary capacity for existing and future freight trains and 

other passenger trains; and safety.

4.1.3 Economic Feasibility

Each proposed route alternative was evaluated to determine if it is feasible with respect to 

economic considerations, including assessment of market potential as measured by high-level 

ridership and revenue from tickets sold forecasts, and capital and operating cost forecasts.

4.1.4 Environmental Concerns

Each proposed route alternative was evaluated to determine whether there are substantial 

concerns with respect to impacts on the natural and human environment. In particular, each 

route alternative was compared to other route alternatives that have a similar ability to meet 

the Study’s purpose and need. Environmental impacts that were considered to be substantial 

concerns included a large impact on a wildlife refuge protected by Section 4(f), relocations of 

homes or businesses, and the need for a large amount of ROW. Additional information on the 

environmental concerns analysis is provided in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. 

4.2 SCREENING PROCESS

A two-step screening process—coarse-level screening and fine-level screening—was used to 

evaluate proposed route alternatives using the four criteria described in Section 4.1, above. 

The purpose of the two-step screening process was to eliminate route alternatives burdened 

by major challenges. The coarse-level screening was applied to the initial range of route 

alternatives, unreasonable alternatives were eliminated from further consideration, fine-level 

screening was applied to the remaining alternatives, and the one or more alternatives that 

passed through the fine-level screening process were carried forward for detailed evaluation 
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-3 October 2012

under the Tier 1 NEPA process. Coarse-level screening and fine-level screening are 

described in Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, respectively. 

4.2.1 Step 1 – Coarse-Level Screening

Coarse-level screening was a high-level screening to determine which route alternatives meet 

the purpose and need, are technically and economically feasible, and are environmentally 

reasonable. Route alternatives that met all of these criteria were carried forward to fine-level 

screening. Route alternatives that did not meet all of these criteria were eliminated from 

further consideration. 

The first criterion to be evaluated was purpose and need. Any route alternative that did not 

meet the purpose and need was eliminated from further evaluation. The route alternatives that 

did meet purpose and need were evaluated based on technical, economic, and environmental 

criteria, as presented in Table 4-1; the Purpose and Need criterion and the Environmental 

Concerns criterion each have subcriteria defined for evaluation. 

The technical review was conducted by considering the infrastructure characteristics of each 

route alternative: 

• Track and signal capacity to accommodate the proposed frequency and schedule 

of passenger trains

• Current and future freight traffic

• Current maximum speed(s) 

• Capability to support the desired speeds of passenger trains

• Major structures

The economic review used uniform unit costs for new infrastructure to provide a consistent 

basis for screening. The environmental review was conducted using atlases and open-source 

aerial photography to identify key constraints along the route alternatives. 

Information gained during the scoping process was used to help compare and screen route 

alternatives. The specific approach implemented for each criterion during coarse-level 

screening is described below. 

A 500-foot wide buffer was applied to each of the route alternatives analyzed in the coarselevel screening. This buffer provided a conservative limit for screening the route alternatives. 
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Table 4-1. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors 

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Other than the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, what is the 

population served by the route alternative? 

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Would the route alternative provide a time-competitive route compared to other route 

alternatives?

Technical

Feasibility

Would the route alternative involve substantially more technical hurdles than other 

route alternatives? Factors considered include:

• Major construction efforts, such as major earthwork and major new bridges

• Potential for freight train traffic conflicts and scope of engineering solutions 

for such conflicts

Economic

Feasibility

Would the route alternative have costs far in excess of its anticipated benefits? Would 

the route alternative be substantially more expensive than other route alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Major 

Challenges

Based on qualitative analysis, does the route alternative have major environmental 

(natural and human environment) challenges compared to other considered route 

alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Sensitive 

Areas

Based on qualitative analysis, would the route alternative traverse substantially more 

environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, 

cultural resources, and park and recreation lands) than other route alternatives?

Environmental 

Concerns: Rightof-Way

Would the route alternative require substantially more ROW acquisition than other 

route alternatives? 

4.2.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

The evaluation of travel demand addressed the potential for ridership along the route 

alternatives. Station stops were identified at the major cities, and the population of the city 

at each stop served as a proxy by which to measure the potential ridership of the route 

alternative. By this methodology, larger population centers logically present a higher 

potential for ridership than would smaller towns. 

Although travel demand analysis and ridership estimate calculations are complex processes, 

broad generalizations can be readily made based on evaluation of the population centers near 

each route alternative. For the coarse-level analysis, population centers within 20 miles of 

each route alternative were considered in the analysis. Because all of the alternatives include 

the Chicago and Omaha population centers, they were excluded from the analysis to more 

clearly portray the populations served between the termini and the differences among the 

route alternatives. 

4.2.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes 

The evaluation of competitive and attractive travel modes addressed travel time, which refers 

to the duration of a trip between any two stations along a route alternative. It is a wellestablished planning principal that when choosing whether to travel, and by which mode, the 

least duration of travel time is a primary desire. This desire is reflected in ridership results of 

existing passenger rail service, commercial air and bus service, and personal auto usage. 

Ultimately, a route alternative for train travel must be time-competitive with other modes of 

transportation (such as automobile, bus, or air travel), or riders will divert to those modes. 
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-5 October 2012

Although travel time analysis is a complex process that involves computer modeling of train 

performance over a route alternative, broad generalizations can readily be made based on 

route alternative length and amount of curvature for any assumed maximum speed. For the 

coarse-level screening, the target maximum speed was 90 mph for each route alternative. 

Thus, route alternatives that are substantially longer, or have greater curvature, compared to 

other routes, will have a longer travel time and consequently will tend to be less appealing to 

riders.

4.2.1.3 Technical Feasibility

Route alternatives were screened against broad technical criteria, such as whether major 

construction efforts would be required to develop the required capacity, speed, and reliability 

for passenger trains. For example, new structures spanning navigable waterways are 

technical hurdles because such structures are generally large and expensive, and must 

overcome substantial permitting hurdles. 

Another technical hurdle is the need to mitigate conflicts with existing freight train traffic 

where a route alternative would superimpose passenger trains on existing freight operations. 

Where freight train traffic is frequent, substantial and complex additional rail infrastructure is 

often required to allow both freight and passenger trains to operate unimpeded. The level of 

existing freight train use of a route alternative and, more specifically, its ability to handle 

additional trains, is generically known as “capacity.” Evaluation of capacity is based on 

knowledge of the level and characteristics of freight train traffic and constraints in each 

railroad’s corridor.

4.2.1.4 Economic Feasibility

This evaluation criterion is closely related to the technical criteria in that the amount and 

complexity of additional infrastructure required for a given alternative is closely related to 

the cost of that alternative. Comprehensive solutions to rail capacity issues, particularly along 

existing busy freight corridors, require more complex projects to allow unimpeded passenger 

rail service. Logically, the more complex a project is, the more expensive it is.

4.2.1.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

Major environmental challenges are characterized by major impacts that could create 

controversy on environmental grounds, such as a substantial impact on a wildlife refuge 

protected by Section 4(f) or relocations of homes or businesses. 

4.2.1.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

A route alternative’s impacts on sensitive areas can broadly be defined as impacts on 

wetlands and waterways, existing recreational areas, and the existing built environment, 

including homes, businesses, farms, and historic properties listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). 
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-6 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

4.2.1.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

A route alternative’s ROW impacts are defined by the potential for property acquisition 

along the route alternative to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Such impacts 

are often related to existing railroad capacity; where capacity is tight, additional tracks and 

ROW are generally required. 

4.2.2 Step 2 – Fine-Level Screening

Fine-level screening was conducted to determine which remaining route alternatives would 

be carried forward for detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS. During fine-level screening, 

route alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening were screened for their 

ability to offer the highest potential ridership; the least potential construction, operating, and 

maintenance cost; and the least potential impact on the natural and human environment. 

In order to estimate potential impacts, a preliminary impact area was identified for each route 

alternative. Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet wide throughout each route 

alternative. A buffer ranging from 25 to 50 feet wide was then applied where necessary to 

accommodate additional track needs, to promote efficient track maintenance, and to mitigate 

any operating disruptions generated by passenger trains. Therefore, the buffer area applied is 

specific to each route alternative. On Route Alternatives 2 and 5, where there are already two 

existing tracks, the new track would need to be constructed approximately 45 to 50 feet away 

from the existing tracks to accommodate an access road between the tracks. On Route 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 4-A, where there is only one existing track, the new track would be 

constructed 25 feet away from the existing track. The preliminary impact area analyzed for 

each route alternative in the fine-level screening included the estimated 100-foot-wide ROW 

and the 25- to 50-foot-wide buffer area for additional track.

Fine-level screening was based on open-source aerial imagery and/or geographic information 

systems (GIS) data, which were used to characterize portions of each route alternative. 

Because several route alternatives, each with lengths on the order of 500 miles, were carried 

forward from coarse-level screening, field visits were not conducted during fine-level 

screening. 

The criteria and their factors evaluated during fine-level screening are listed in Table 4-2. 

Purpose and Need, Technical Feasibility, and Environmental Concerns each have subcriteria 

defined for evaluation. The environmental criteria were selected from those resources that 

were readily quantifiable, and often include constraints on project development. Some of the 

resources selected for screening would also require permits or approvals. Consequently, 

although not every environmental resource included in the NEPA document was considered 

for initial screening of alternatives, the resources selected for screening were known to be 

key constraints. Further detail on the methodology for evaluating each criterion follows the 

table. 
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-7 October 2012

Table 4-2. Fine-Level Screening Criteria

Criteria Factors 

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Does a preliminary travel demand analysis indicate that the route alternative would 

attract a substantially greater or lesser number of riders compared to other route 

alternatives? Would the route alternative attract sufficient ridership to be an 

economically feasible alternative?

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Based on information from coarse-level screening, determine if running times can be 

further refined for each route alternative. Would the route alternative provide a timecompetitive route compared to other route alternatives?

Technical Feasibility: 

Passenger and Freight 

Capacity

Determine general infrastructure improvements that would be required to deliver 

desired passenger train speeds and schedules. Determine general infrastructure 

improvements required to maintain existing and future freight train services while 

enabling prioritized passenger-train operation.

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: 

Alignment

Would the route alternative involve a more challenging alignment or grading 

problems, including flyovers, in order to meet speed and capacity requirements? 

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: Structures

Establish conceptual costs for structures for each route alternative for purposes of 

comparison.

Technical/Economic

Feasibility: Grade 

Crossings

Determine the number of new and expanded grade crossings and grade separations 

for each route alternative for purposes of comparison.

Economic Feasibility: Determine high-level project cost for route alternative comparison utilizing 

subcomponents that address alignment, structures, grade crossings, etc. Determine 

operating and maintenance costs for each route alternative as a basis for comparison.

Environmental 

Concerns: 

Environmental 

Impacts

Upon initial evaluation of the route alternative and quantification of conceptual 

environmental effects, would the route alternative have the potential to impact 

substantially more environmentally sensitive areas in the following categories 

compared with other route alternatives?

• Streams

• Floodplains

• Wetlands

• Farmland

• Threatened and endangered species

• Cultural resources

• Potential Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties

• Environmental justice

• Noise and vibration

• Hazardous materials

Environmental 

Concerns: Right-ofWay

Determine conceptual ROW acquisition for each route alternative for purposes of 

comparison (refined from coarse-level screening). Would the route alternative 

require acquisition and demolition/disruption of substantially more structures, 

developments, agricultural resources, or features of the existing built environment

(including homes, businesses, farms, and historic properties listed on the NRHP)

than other route alternatives?
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-8 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

4.2.2.1 Purpose and Need

Fine-level screening of route alternatives based on purpose and need built on the evaluations 

conducted during coarse-level screening and determined whether the conclusions regarding 

which route alternatives meet purpose and need remain valid. A more detailed look at travel 

demand and competitive and attractive travel modes was conducted as described in Sections 

4.2.2.1.1 and 4.2.2.1.2. 

Each proposed route alternative was evaluated based on the following factors related to the 

purpose and need: 

• Travel demand in the Corridor (both existing and potential for the next 20 years) 

resulting from population growth and changing demographics 

• Competitive and attractive travel modes, including competitive travel times and 

convenience 

4.2.2.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

For the coarse-level screening, population centers within 20 miles of each route alternative 

were considered in the analysis to develop generalized estimates of potential travel demand. 

For the fine-level screening a rail passenger ridership and revenue from tickets sold forecast 

was prepared for each of the route alternatives carried forward into fine-level screening under 

each of the potential speed regimes studied (79, 90, and 110 mph) to analyze the extent to 

which a Route Alternative satisfied travel demand. This ridership and revenue from tickets 

sold forecast used a preliminary study timetable based on potential running times for each 

route alternative that were determined using a Train Performance Calculator (TPC). The key 

assumptions used in the TPCs and preliminary timetable are the following:

• No changes were made to existing maximum train speeds in commuter territories 

and major terminals.

• No changes were made to existing alignments to reduce sharpness of curvature. 

• A 5-inch superelevation and 5-inch unbalance were assumed for curves and 

equipment, respectively. 

• Trainsets consisted of two General Electric P42 type locomotives operated in 

push-pull mode and five conventional (Amtrak Horizon) type coaches. 

• Dwell time at intermediate station stops was 2 minutes.

• Intermediate station stops were those identified in Figure 3-1. 

• No recovery time was added to schedules.

• Schedules used common departure times from Chicago and Omaha of 6:30 a.m., 

8:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 2:30 p.m., and 4:30 p.m. This resulted in the last train 

arriving at approximately 11:30 p.m. on the slowest route alternative at the 

slowest speed.
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-9 October 2012

The key assumptions used in ridership and revenue from tickets sold forecasts were as 

follows: 

• The year 2020 was used as the anticipated initial year of service. 

• Amtrak’s current Midwest pricing structure was used. These are not “revenue 

maximizing” fares but are consistent with current Amtrak pricing in Illinois and the 

Midwest. This results in a one-way fare from Chicago to Omaha (or vice versa) of 

$59.00 (see Attachment A). 

These ridership and revenue from tickets sold forecasts were used to assess travel demand in 

the fine-level screening, building upon the population estimates used in the coarse-level 

screening.

4.2.2.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

To assess route alternatives competitiveness and attractiveness compared to other travel 

modes, current alternate travel modes were assessed. Alternate travel modes assessed were 

personal auto, commercial airline service, and commercial intercity bus service. In addition, 

the availability of intermodal connectivity at Chicago, Omaha, and the major intermediate 

cities was analyzed. Alternate travel modes were evaluated for their travel time, travel cost, 

trip reliability, and availability of service, for trips between Chicago and Omaha, and for 

intermediate cities served by the alternate travel mode. These evaluations were compared to 

each of the route alternatives to determine if the route alternative offered competitive and 

attractive travel times, costs, reliability, and availability of service. To fulfill Purpose and 

Need, a route alternative must be reasonably competitive with the alternative travel mode for 

time, cost, reliability, and availability of service. For example, a route alternative that is 

substantially slower than personal auto would not be reasonably competitive. 

Publically available information consulted included: 

• Commercial airline and bus service data, such as timetables, pricing information, 

and descriptions of service, extracted from airline and bus line websites 

• Databases from U.S. government sources such as the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics

• Travel information websites published by Iowa and Illinois DOT, and the Illinois 

Tollway Authority

• Travel costs for personal autos allowed by the Internal Revenue Service, plus 

applicable tollway charges and parking.

• Distances for highway trips using Google MapsTM mapping service. 

These sources are documented in Attachment B. 

A common basis was established for an assumed typical traveler to provide direct crossmode comparisons between rail, personal auto, and commercial bus and airline services. The 

common basis is that the typical traveler is:

• One person per party 

• Traveling for business reasons 

• Trip is round-trip between the downtown districts of Omaha and Chicago 

• Home terminal is Omaha
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-10 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

• No opportunity for adjusting travel dates (relative to a trip for entertainment or 

personal reasons) to optimize travel cost, modal congestion peaks, or inclement 

weather

• Little advance notice to optimize travel cost

• Time used for trip has an opportunity cost (work or other use of time could occur) 

• Trip reliability (on-time performance, low risk of cancellation for any external 

cause) has high value 

• Trip is intended to be overnight, business conducted in Chicago either afternoon 

of first day, or morning of second day 

• Trip commences no earlier than 5:30 a.m., trip ends no later than 1:00 a.m. the 

following day (assuming not more than 1 hour travel time from home or place of 

business to location of air, bus, or rail service, and not more than 1 hour travel 

time from location of air, bus or rail service, to destination in Chicago) 

4.2.2.2 Technical Feasibility

Technical feasibility was assessed for each route alternative in the coarse-level screening, 

including a broad outline of the scope of infrastructure required for each route alternative to 

deliver the proposed passenger-train travel time, frequency, and reliability, and accommodate 

existing and likely future freight train traffic. The fine-level screening built upon that 

foundation to develop quantities of infrastructure required for each route alternative. These 

quantities in turn were used to develop cost estimates in the economic feasibility evaluation.

Railroad operating parameters that influence train speed have an effect on overall travel time 

and therefore on travel demand. Railroad operating parameters also influence railroad line 

capacity and the severity of scheduling conflicts between freight and passenger trains, 

particularly with respect to overall line capacity. In turn, these operating considerations 

influence the necessary infrastructure associated with each route alternative. 

4.2.2.2.1 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity

The technical feasibility evaluation first developed a conceptual understanding of the 

capacity requirements of a rail line that would carry five passenger trains operating at 79 mph 

(or faster) in each direction daily, and freight trains moving at slower speeds. This conceptual 

understanding was then applied to each route alternative. The most important capacity

consideration was determined to be the requirement for sufficient capacity to enable

overtakes of freight trains by passenger trains, because freight traffic on all of the route 

alternatives does not operate on a fixed schedule. Thus a passenger train schedule cannot be 

designed to operate in gaps between freight trains, because these gaps are not predictable. 

Similar to traffic on a highway, where an emergency vehicle (such as a fire truck or 

ambulance) needs slower vehicles to move out of the way, railroad traffic requires slower 

trains to move out of the way of faster trains. To enable freight trains to continue without 

delay or impedance, overtakes are typically accomplished with side tracks that freight trains 

move into as a passenger train approaches from behind, or by segregating passenger and 

freight trains into different main tracks on which each move at their desired rate without 

interference with each other. It is also possible to perform overtake events by using the 

opposing main track of a two-main track railroad, such as one automobile passes another on a 

two-lane highway. Similar to a highway, this method is only feasible if the other main track 
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-11 October 2012

has long gaps between trains moving in the opposite direction. Trains, unlike vehicles 

moving or passing each other on a highway, require much longer distances for an overtake 

due to the length of trains, a train’s lack of capability for rapid acceleration/deceleration and 

requirements for safe train spacing that are enforced by wayside signal systems. 

An idealized example of the least-possible distance required for a passenger train nominally 

operating at 80 mph to overtake a freight train operating at 50 mph, without either being 

impeded by the other, is illustrated in Figure 4-1. The minimum distance is established by the 

spacing and aspect progression between railroad wayside signals, which, to help ensure safe 

operation of trains, controls how closely one train can follow another. The distance between 

signals is typically approximately 2 miles. The minimum practical distance between two 

unimpeded trains is typically not less than 8 miles; any closer distance, and the train behind 

must reduce speed according to the wayside signal aspects in the wake of the leading train. 

Figure 4-1 shows a scenario where all elements of the interaction between two trains, the 

signal system, and the dispatching office occur in a sequence that delivers the least possible 

length of required side track for an overtake event. This scenario also assumes there are no 

vertical or horizontal imperfections (grades and curves) in the track that serve to slow either 

train from its maximum authorized speed. Note that if the opposing main track is used for an 

overtake event, the minimum length of opposing main track required is identical to the 

minimum length of siding. During the time the freight train being overtaken is occupying the 

opposing main track, no trains can operate in the opposite direction to the freight train. 

This evaluation of minimum infrastructure requirements to deliver unimpeded passenger and 

freight train capacity was compared to the infrastructure and freight train traffic of each route 

alternative carried forward from coarse-level screening. Track infrastructure was added to 

each alternative so that the route alternative had sufficient track capacity to operate passenger 

trains at the desired maximum speed (79, 90, or 110 mph), without impedance by freight 

trains or from each other, and that existing and likely future freight trains also had sufficient 

capacity to operate without additional impedance from each other or from passenger trains. 

This additional capacity included both capacity for through trains (trains that progress from 

one major terminal to another without intermediate switching of cars within the train or 

service to lineside industries), and local trains (trains that serve local industries, or perform 

intermediate switching of cars within the train en route). This additional capacity took the 

form of: second or third main track to segregate passenger and freight trains; sidings to 

enable through freight trains to move out of the path of passenger trains; and side tracks 

designed to enable local freight trains to switch or serve local industries without impeding 

passenger trains.

4.2.2.2.2 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

Each route alternative was evaluated for its potential passenger-train running time, using a 

software tool called a Train Performance Calculation (TPC), and improvements to the 

existing alignment necessary to deliver the running time were conceptually determined. The 

TPC uses the known performance characteristics of a locomotive or locomotives specified by 

the user for a given train consist (the passenger cars) for the vertical and horizontal alignment 

of a given rail line that is input into the tool. The TPC assumes that the passenger train is run 

without impedance from other trains on the given rail line, and simulates the operation of the 
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-12 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

train on the line to derive the best-possible running time between end points and between 

station stops. 

• Conceptual TPC runs were developed for each route alternative as follows: 

o TPC runs were set for the highest possible speed commensurate with prior 

studies conducted by the MWRRI and with the likely infrastructure costs 

and ridership demand. TPC runs were conducted at 79, 90, and 110 mph 

for each route alternative.

o TPC runs assumed station stops at major urban areas, designated in the 

initial identification of station stops.

o Train consists used in TPC runs chose motive-power and trainsets 

commensurate with the speed regime used in MWRRI studies and with the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Section 305 

committee specifications for next-generation locomotives and trainsets. 

Because next-generation locomotives and trainset specifications are under 

development, the TPC used the weight and horsepower of existing 

locomotives and the weight of existing passenger cars. If next-generation 

equipment is able to substantially decrease weight of equipment, or 

increase horsepower of locomotives, train performance would improve. 

o Existing curve speeds, zone speeds, and existing railroad Employee 

Timetable instructions (where available) were used for each route 

alternative to determine maximum initial train speeds.

• TPC runs were used to develop conceptual meet and pass locations and 

conceptual schedules. Schedules assumed that passenger trains are unimpeded by 

freight trains, other passenger trains, or themselves. 

• The passenger-train schedule and speed were used to identify high-level, 

conceptual infrastructure capacity requirements for each route alternative for 

meet-pass events. These infrastructure requirements included: 

o The number and general location of track capacity and features to enable 

unimpeded passenger train runs and reliable service, such as sidings for 

passenger/passenger meet-pass events.

o Track capacity to avoid degradation of existing freight capacity, service, 

and reliability, and estimated growth in freight train traffic for 20 years.

After operating requirements were established, the minimum track infrastructure required

was conceptually determined and quantified for each route alternative. Parameters included: 

• Conceptual identification of improved track structure and geometry necessary to 

deliver higher passenger train speeds, including identification of methods to 

reduce the impact on travel time of speed-restrictive curves, such as increasing 

superelevation of curves. 

• Improved track structure and track capacity necessary to deliver reliable 

passenger train service (for example, reductions in slow-order frequency and 

duration), to enable maintenance activities to be conducted without impedance to 

passenger and freight trains, and to reduce ongoing maintenance costs. 
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-13 October 2012

• Additional infrastructure necessary to support passenger trains, such as station 

tracks, servicing facilities, high-speed sidings, signaling, and additional main 

track.

• Additional infrastructure necessary to mitigate effects on existing and forecasted 

freight service and industrial development. 

• Infrastructure necessary to deliver passengers to trains and receive passengers 

from trains, including stations, intermodal connections, and parking requirements. 

The two endpoint terminals of the Corridor were evaluated separately from the route 

alternatives between the terminals for their effects on travel time. The Chicago terminal area 

was considered to be the total distance between each route alternative’s Chicago downtown 

station, and the present-day commuter-rail stop furthest from downtown on that route 

alternative. Travel time in the Chicago terminal area was calculated using the maximum 

speeds for that trackage. The Omaha terminal area was considered to be the total distance 

from the common point in Council Bluffs, where all five route alternatives converge to a 

common point, to the Omaha terminal. Travel time in the Omaha terminal area was 

calculated using a maximum speed of 40 mph due to the short distance between Council 

Bluffs and Omaha and the likelihood that the route would incorporate turnouts, curvature, 

and safety considerations that would preclude higher speeds. 

Because the five route alternatives converge to a common point in Council Bluffs and would 

continue on a common route to Omaha, all route alternatives would have this same element, 

and it was not considered a differentiator for comparing route alternatives. 

4.2.2.2.3 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

Structures consist of bridges required to support the alignment across waterways, major 

geographic features, or to separate railroad routes that cross each other. Each route 

alternative was evaluated for the requirement for bridges. This included assessment of: 

whether existing bridges had sufficient train capacity to enable the desired speed, frequency, 

and reliability of passenger trains, without impedance to existing or likely future freight 

trains; whether existing bridges were likely to be in a suitable state of repair for the proposed 

passenger service or would require extensive rehabilitation or replacement; and whether the 

addition of the passenger train service would create a need for grade-separation of crossing 

rail routes. This assessment resulted in a quantification of structures required for each route 

alternative.

4.2.2.2.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

Grade-crossings consist of road/rail at-grade crossings. Each route alternative was evaluated 

for its grade-crossing characteristics, including whether each grade-crossing was equipped 

with a grade-crossing signal system, the crossing type (public or private), the number of 

roadway lanes, and the number of tracks through the crossing both at present and after the 

installation of any required additional capacity necessary to deliver the required passenger 

and freight train capacity, speed, and reliability. Grade-crossing improvements were 

identified and quantified, including improvements or additions to grade-crossing surfaces, 

installation or improvement of signal systems, and whether grade-separation structures or 

crossing closures were potentially warranted. Grade-crossing signal systems are required in 
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-14 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

accordance with FRA and state regulations. These requirements vary by the proposed 

maximum speed of passenger trains. 

4.2.2.3 Economic Feasibility

Economic feasibility was determined for each route alternative in order to establish a cost 

basis for comparison. This cost evaluation consisted of capital costs for infrastructure and 

equipment, and assessment of differences between potential operating and maintenance costs 

for each route alternative.

Generalized capital costs for construction or improvement of track, signaling and 

communications systems, bridges and drainage structures, and roadway crossings or grade 

separations were quantified for each route alternative in order to provide a quick and 

consistent basis for evaluating the technical challenges and conceptual costs of each route 

alternative. 

Several broad categories of terrain (for example, single-track shallow cuts and fills, doubletrack deep cuts and fills, single-track major structure, or double-track urban grade crossing) 

were defined, with accompanying generalizations about construction cost in each category. 

This became the basis for conceptual cost estimates for each route alternative carried forward 

for fine-level screening. This was a valuable step because it is assumed that civil construction 

will represent both a major component of the cost and a major contributor to environmental 

impacts. Quantities were tabulated in spreadsheets; however, due to the extensive length of 

the route alternatives to be evaluated, plan sheets were not produced. Equipment costs were 

assessed by considering whether a route alternative might require more trainsets to 

compensate for reduced trips per day per trainset or to reduce trainset service and 

maintenance time. Generalized annual operating costs were assessed for each route 

alternative, with a particular view toward whether a route had longer travel times or 

alignment features that increased labor costs and fuel costs. For comparison purposes, capital 

and operating costs for the route alternatives assumed maximum train speeds of 90 mph. 

Infrastructure requirements in the Chicago and Omaha terminals were evaluated at only a 

high level due to the complexity of rail traffic in these areas and the potential for cumulative 

effects of other major passenger and freight initiatives in these areas. 

High-level equipment costs were assessed for the Corridor as a whole. If a particular route 

alternative was seen to require additional equipment, such as additional locomotives to 

overcome grades, additional trainsets to account for slower schedules and fewer equipment 

turns, or additional trainsets to account for greater capacity demand, these were used to adjust 

equipment costs for the route alternative in question. 

High-level operating costs were assessed based on equipment turns, schedules, and other 

unique characteristics of each route alternative. Known host railroad or operator requirements 

that may affect operating costs for a particular route alternative were included, such as 

additional crew districts or additional personnel requirements. 

High-level maintenance costs for infrastructure and equipment were assessed based on the 

requirements of each route alternative. Infrastructure that cannot be shared with freight 

railroads was assessed at a stand-alone cost, whereas infrastructure that can be shared with 

freight railroads was assessed using existing Amtrak cost-reimbursement schedules. 
Chapter 4

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Screening Methodology and Criteria

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 4-15 October 2012

Equipment costs were assessed on a stand-alone basis to avoid assumptions of economies 

with other route alternatives that may not prove viable. 

The application of those technical criteria related specifically to rail operations will be 

addressed in greater detail subsequently in the Service Development Plan.

Many of the costs are directly related to the length of a given route alternative, and the 

density of freight traffic. Specifically, the track, earthwork, and railroad signal costs are 

directly related to the length of each route alternative. The requirement for additional main 

track is directly related to the density of freight train traffic— more freight train traffic tends 

to create a requirement for more main tracks. Fuel, labor, and equipment costs are influenced 

by length of route alternative. However, none of the route alternatives have substantial 

geographic features, such as mountainous terrain, that would increase operating or 

maintenance costs to any substantial degree. Thus, shorter route alternatives tend to have 

lower costs than longer route alternatives, and route alternatives with lower freight train 

traffic density tend to have lower costs than route alternatives with high freight train traffic 

density. 

4.2.2.4 Environmental Concerns

Fine-level screening for environmental concerns was based on a more detailed comparison of 

the route alternatives carried forward from coarse-level screening to determine whether some 

could result in potential environmental impacts substantially greater than other route 

alternatives. Data on the environmental resources were compiled through publicly available 

datasets and information made available from resource agencies through the scoping process. 

A 100-foot-wide ROW with buffers (as described in Section 4.2.2) for anticipated ROW 

acquisition, was reviewed via GIS to determine whether sensitive resources, as noted in 

Table 4-2, are present. 

The ROW and buffers for each route alternative were developed through Council Bluffs into 

Omaha. As noted in Section 4.2.2.2.2, there is potential for a second bridge over the Missouri 

River near Blair, Nebraska. However, this would be the same for all route alternatives, and 

consequently was not evaluated for environmental concerns. 

4.2.2.4.1 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

Route alternatives were evaluated using GIS data, stream, floodplain, wetland, critical 

habitat, cultural resource, and Section 4(f)/6(f) data within existing ROW and a ROWacquisition buffer estimated to account for potential improvements; the discussion of ROW, 

below, describes the methodology for estimating this area. Because potentially farmable land 

within existing ROW is dedicated to railroad use, only suitable land within the buffer area 

was evaluated as potential farmland. 

National hydrography data from the U.S. Geological Survey were used to characterize 

streams. Floodplain data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 

the Mississippi and Missouri rivers. Rural acreages (area outside of city boundaries as 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) minus wetland acres were used to roughly estimate the 

acres of farmland within the ROW acquisition buffer. Wetland boundaries were obtained 

from the National Wetland Inventory database. Critical habitat areas for federally listed 

threatened and endangered species were obtained from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data. 
Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-16 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Sites listed on the NRHP were obtained from National Park Service data. Parks, recreation 

areas, wildlife refuges, and wildlife management and production areas were located using 

data from agency websites and publicly available mapping software. For the purpose of the 

fine-level screening, it was assumed that all of these parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, 

and wildlife management and production areas, as well as historic sites, are protected under 

Section 4(f). During fine-level screening, parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges were 

also identified as potential Section 6(f) resources. At this point in the screening process, a 

detailed evaluation to determine specific Section 4(f) properties along each route alternative 

is not warranted. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data obtained from the Envirofacts website 

were used to determine the number of Superfund sites listed on the National Priority List 

(NPL) that are located 1 mile or less from each of the proposed route alternatives. One large 

Superfund site located approximately 1.2 miles from Route Alternative 4 was included due to 

the size and scale of the site.

Potential noise and environmental justice impacts were qualitatively evaluated by comparing 

the area of moderately to densely developed residential areas located in close proximity 

(approximately 500 feet) to each of the route alternatives. Publicly available satellite and

aerial imagery from 2011 were used for this comparison. It was assumed that the area 

affected by increased noise and vibration levels would increase with increasing train speed 

and numbers of trains operating on a route alternative. Moderately to densely populated 

residential areas would have more noise and vibration receptors than lightly populated rural 

areas. It is assumed that environmental justice impacts would be greater in urban areas 

because urban areas have higher population density, typically have more racial and ethnic 

diversity, and have a broader range of income levels. 

4.2.2.4.2 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

The amount of ROW that would need to be acquired was estimated for each route alternative. 

While the ROW widths can vary considerably, it is reasonable to assume an average of a 

100-foot-wide existing ROW corridor for the length of each route alternative. Engineering 

input on specific route alternatives was then used to determine a buffer of additional ROW 

needed around one or both sides of the corridor. 

Although ROW would be needed for station locations, the areas for the stations are unknown 

and thus the ROW acreage was not included for this analysis. The specific approach for each 

ROW corridor is discussed for each of the route alternatives analyzed. The amount of urban 

versus rural area (in acres) was also compared for each ROW corridor. City boundaries from 

U.S. Census data were used to distinguish urban areas from rural. Acquisition of urban ROW 

is typically more expensive and potentially results in impacts related to relocation of homes, 

businesses, and utilities; potential issues with hazardous waste; and potential indirect 

impacts, such as the relocations or upgrades of roads and crossings. 

Chapter 4

Screening Methodology and Criteria Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 4-18 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 5

COARSE-LEVEL SCREENING

Each route alternative and the No-Build Alternative were evaluated against the coarse-level 

screening criteria defined in Section 4.2.1, and the results of this evaluation are presented 

below. A summary of the screening results is provided in Table 5-1, located at the end of this 

chapter. The coarse-level screening effort addressed the route alternatives from west of 

Chicago to Council Bluffs. The respective approaches into Chicago were addressed during 

fine-level screening. In addition, because all route alternatives converge to a common point 

at Council Bluffs, the final section of the Corridor between Council Bluffs and Omaha was 

not included as a basis for comparison. 

5.1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1

Route Alternative 1 is the northernmost of the route alternatives and is owned by CN. This 

route alternative is 516 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. 

5.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand 

Route Alternative 1 would serve the intermediate major communities of Elgin and Rockford, 

Illinois, and Dubuque, Waterloo, and Fort Dodge, Iowa. The total population within 20 miles 

of these intermediate stops is approximately 774,000. As described in Section 4.2.1.1, this 

excludes the population of Elgin because it is considered to be in the Chicago metropolitan 

area, and the population of the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas was 

excluded from the analysis. Figure 5-1, located at the end of this chapter, shows the 

population at potential stations for Route Alternative 1. 

5.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 1 is longer than Route Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 4-A and thus would have 

a longer travel time between Chicago and Omaha based on length alone. Route Alternative 1 

has moderate to severe curvature that may degrade travel time as passenger train speeds 

increase.

5.1.3 Technical Feasibility

Route Alternative 1 is a light-density freight train route outside of the Chicago core, except 

where it is joint with BNSF’s high-density main line between Chicago and the Twin Cities 

along the east bank of the Mississippi River near East Dubuque, Illinois. Beyond the Chicago 

core, and not including the joint BNSF trackage, freight train traffic averages less than 10 

trains per day and is dominated by manifest freight supporting the agricultural, 

manufacturing, and construction industries of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. Track structure 

and main track capacity is commensurate with the freight train density and type. Most of 

Route Alternative 1 is not equipped with wayside signals. This route alternative generally 

follows its original alignment as constructed and was not historically upgraded for higher 

speeds or traffic density. 
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

5.1.4 Economic Feasibility

Route Alternative 1 is currently suitable for only low speeds. Even where there is adequate 

capacity, substantial upgrades to the existing infrastructure, including track and signaling 

systems, would be required to reach 90 mph. In the area between Portage and Dubuque, 

particularly in the area of shared track with BNSF, expensive capacity improvements would 

be required, including substantial fill along the Mississippi River. The addition of fill would 

lead to substantial environmental impacts, including floodplain and wetland impacts, and 

would occur within a Wildlife and Fish Refuge, as noted in Section 5.1.6. 

5.1.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

There appear to be no major environmental challenges (such as extensive ROW requirements 

or the need for additional major structures) for Route Alternative 1. 

5.1.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

There are many environmentally sensitive areas in the vicinity of Portage, Illinois, and 

Dubuque and Wood, Iowa. Most are wetlands and rivers. 

Route Alternative 1 passes through six forest preserves (FP) and is adjacent to two FPs in 

Illinois, passes through the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, and 

is adjacent to a state preserve and a wildlife management area (WMA) in Iowa. This route 

alternative passes through one city park and is adjacent to eleven city parks in the Chicago 

area and three city parks in Iowa. In addition, Route Alternative 1 passes through four large 

areas of numerous wetlands in Illinois, including a 17-mile stretch through a river valley with 

numerous wetlands and sharp curves and a 12-mile stretch along the Mississippi River with 

numerous wetlands on both sides of the existing rail line. These would likely preclude 

straightening of curves or easy addition of capacity, particularly along the Mississippi River. 

This route alternative also passes through five large areas of wetlands in Iowa. Route 

Alternative 1 passes through or adjacent to large industrial areas in the Chicago area, 

adjacent to a petrochemical refinery with several large aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) 

adjacent to the Mississippi River, and adjacent to two industrial areas in Iowa. Finally, Route 

Alternative 1 is adjacent to a historic area in Dubuque, Iowa. 

5.1.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Additional ROW would likely be required where Route Alternative 1 shares track with 

BNSF along the Mississippi River. The existing ROW is relatively narrow between Dubuque 

and Council Bluffs, and though the line has comparatively infrequent freight service, several 

long passing tracks (and additional ROW) would be required, much of it in farmland. 

5.2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2

Route Alternative 2 is south of Route Alternative 1. Route Alternative 2 is owned by Union 

Pacific Railroad (UP). This route alternative is 479 miles long between Chicago Union 

Station and Council Bluffs. 
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-3 October 2012

5.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 2 would serve the intermediate major communities of DeKalb, Illinois; and 

Clinton, Cedar Rapids, and Ames, Iowa. The total population within 20 miles of these 

intermediate stops is approximately 523,940. As described in Section 4.2.1.1, this excludes 

the population of DeKalb because it is considered to be in the Chicago metropolitan area, and 

the population of the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas was excluded 

from the analysis. Figure 5-2, located at the end of this chapter, shows the population at 

potential stations for Route Alternative 2.

5.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 2 is similar in length to Route Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 4-A and thus would 

have a similar travel time between Chicago and Omaha based on length alone. Route 

Alternative 2 has moderate curvature that may degrade travel time as passenger train speeds 

increase. 

5.2.3 Technical Feasibility

Route Alternative 2 is a high-density freight train route from end to end. It hosts high-density 

Metra commuter train traffic between Chicago and Elburn, Illinois. There are substantial 

railroad capacity constraints over the entire route alternative, including congestion at the 

Mississippi River and Missouri River bridges. Current train traffic averages 50 to 80 freight 

trains per day, and 56 weekday commuter trains between Chicago and station stops as far 

west as Elburn. Freight trains operate at average maximum speeds of approximately 60 mph, 

but trains with low horsepower per ton ratios decline to substantially slower speeds on 

ascending grades. Track structure and wayside signaling are commensurate with the capacity 

and speed of this route alternative. Route Alternative 2 is equipped with wayside signaling 

throughout. Freight train traffic in the Chicago area is carefully coordinated with Metra 

commuter traffic. Freight trains are effectively restricted from entering Chicago during the 

morning and evening commuter rush hours. As a result, freight trains stage on main tracks 

west of Chicago for movement during off-peak hours. 

To accommodate passenger trains without degrading freight train capacity, substantial 

infrastructure may be required to enable overtakes of freight trains and meet/pass events for 

the Chicago-Omaha passenger trains, to intermesh with Metra commuter traffic, and to 

provide adequate windows for track maintenance. Capacity for overtake events may require 

an additional main track. Obstacles to constructing an additional main track include lack of 

unused, existing ROW, which based on ground features (for example, fence lines, buildings, 

and field boundaries) is wide enough for the existing two main tracks but would, in most 

places, not accommodate a third main track without ROW acquisition along nearly all of this 

route alternative. Large bridges across the Mississippi, Des Moines, and Missouri rivers are 

double-track. Additional main track capacity may require replacement or additional bridges. 

The Mississippi River bridge is particularly problematic as it is a movable bridge that opens 

an average of eight times daily for river traffic, creating substantial rail congestion due to 

heavy freight train traffic on this route alternative.
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

5.2.4 Economic Feasibility

Because of the high infrastructure requirements, upgrading Route Alternative 2 for 90 mph 

passenger trains would be extremely expensive. In addition, adding main track capacity for 

the major river crossings would be particularly expensive.

5.2.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

The existing level of train traffic (see Section 5.2.6) along Route Alternative 2 dictates that 

substantial additional capacity would be required to provide reliable passenger train service. 

This may require substantial additional track construction in the most congested areas, 

including a new bridge across the Mississippi River. The accompanying construction efforts 

are likely to have major environmental impacts at multiple locations along this route 

alternative because substantial property acquisition would be required. 

5.2.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

Track in the area around Sterling, Illinois, is on a causeway or along the bank of the Rock 

River. Adding a track here would require substantial fill in the river. 

The area around Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is constrained, and an additional track would require 

property acquisitions in this urban area as well as impacts on public parks along the Cedar 

River.

Route Alternative 2 passes through one FP and is adjacent to seven FPs (two of these FPs are 

adjacent to each other on the opposite sides of the track) in Illinois. This route alternative is 

adjacent to a state park and a natural area in Illinois as well as two WMAs and a natural area 

in Iowa. This route alternative also passes through the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge in Illinois, and a WMA in Iowa. In addition, Route Alternative 1 

passes through a city park and is adjacent to ten city parks in Illinois and passes through a 

city park and is adjacent to one city park in Iowa. This route alternative passes through five 

areas of wetlands in Iowa. Finally, Route Alternative 2 passes adjacent to heavy industrial 

areas in the Chicago area, in northwest Illinois, and in Iowa. 

5.2.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Additional ROW would likely be required over most of Route Alternative 2. In addition to 

being very expensive, this would require displacement of many landowners, particularly 

where the route alternative passes through towns, and would affect many agricultural 

resources.

5.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3

Route Alternative 3 was severed in the 1980s, when the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and 

Pacific Railroad completed its final bankruptcy. Today, CP operates the east end of the 

railroad between Chicago and Green Island, Iowa (Regional Transportation owns the route 

from Chicago to Elgin, and CP from Elgin to Green Island), while BNSF owns and operates 

the extreme west end of the route from Bayard, Iowa, to Council Bluffs. Between Green 

Island and Bayard, the railroad has been abandoned, and the ROW in most areas has been 

converted to farmland, or to urban uses where it passes through towns. This route alternative 

is 490 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. 
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-5 October 2012

5.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 3 would serve the intermediate major communities of Savanna, Illinois, 

and Cedar Rapids and Slater (near Des Moines), Iowa. The total population within 20 miles 

of these intermediate stops is approximately 674,000. As described in Section 4.2.1.1, the 

population of the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas was excluded from 

the analysis. Figure 5-3, located at the end of this chapter, shows the population at potential 

stations for Route Alternative 3.

5.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 3 is similar in length to Route Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 4-A and thus would 

have a similar travel time between Chicago and Omaha based on length alone. Route 

Alternative 4-A has moderate curvature that may degrade travel time as passenger train 

speeds increase. If constructed as an exclusive passenger-train railroad in the abandoned 

portion in Iowa, Route Alternative 4-A may have opportunities for improved travel times. 

5.3.3 Technical Feasibility

Between Chicago and Savanna, Illinois/Green Island, Iowa, CP averages approximately 

8 freight trains per day. Metra operates 58 commuter trains and station stops as far west as 

Big Timber Road near Elgin, Illinois. BNSF operates approximately 2 freight trains per day 

between Bayard, Iowa, and Council Bluffs. Freight trains operate at average maximum 

speeds of 40 mph on the CP portion and 20 mph on the BNSF portion. Wayside signaling is 

present on the CP portion but discontinued on the BNSF portion. The alignment was 

extensively upgraded by the Milwaukee Road in the 1900 to 1930 time period to enable high 

speeds and capacity (much of the line was double-track), but the track structure is now 

commensurate with the low speeds and density of the remaining route. 

5.3.4 Economic Feasibility

Because so much of the railroad must be constructed essentially from scratch, costs would be 

extremely high. Not only would track construction be required, but also approximately 

225 miles of ROW acquisition costs would be required. Because this portion of the corridor 

would likely be dedicated to passenger trains, the entire maintenance burden for that section 

of the corridor would be borne by the passenger trains. 

5.3.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

Track has been removed from an abandoned section of Route Alternative 3 from Green 

Island to Bayard, Iowa (approximately 225 miles in total length), which presents a major 

environmental obstacle and is considered a major challenge. Buildings and streets have been 

developed over portions of the former ROW in 16 communities; consequently, extensive 

relocations affecting community cohesiveness would be required. Former bridges across the 

Iowa River, Cedar River, and Des Moines River have been removed. Numerous crossings 

across highways and local roads would need to be reconstructed and signalized. An early 

railroad bridge over the Des Moines River (replaced by a high bridge in 1973) has been 

rebuilt as a recreational trail crossing; this bridge would need to be reacquired and rebuilt, or 

a bridge on a new alignment would need to be built. Most of the former track between Green 

Island and Spragueville, Iowa, a distance of approximately 10 miles, was constructed through 
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-6 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

marshy areas; reconstruction of track through this area would affect wetlands, streams, and 

riverine habitat. Two sections of the former rail line have been converted into recreational 

trails. Extensive areas of the former railroad grade are being farmed. Reconstruction of the 

abandoned rail line would have significant effects on communities, infrastructure, wetlands, 

waters of the U.S., and wildlife habitat. The hurdle presented by the need for approximately 

225 miles of new corridor, including requisite new utility relocations, grade separations, and 

property acquisitions is so high as to be effectively insurmountable. 

5.3.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

Route Alternative 3 passes through one FP and is adjacent to three FPs and one state fish and 

wildlife area in Illinois, passes through the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge, and passes through one WMA in Iowa. This route alternative passes through 

one city park and is adjacent to four city parks in the Chicago area. In addition, this route 

alternative passes through an area of wetlands in Iowa (the abandoned segment passes 

through several extensive areas of wetlands). Finally, Route Alternative 3 passes through 

heavy industrial areas in the Chicago area and an industrial area in Iowa. 

Among the environmentally sensitive areas is the portion of Route Alternative 3 from 

Savanna, Illinois across the Mississippi River to Sabula, Iowa, which is on a combination of 

causeway, structure, and the bank of the Mississippi River and has an alignment suitable for 

only low speeds. Improvements in the alignment would require substantial fill in the 

Mississippi River or in adjacent wetlands.

Other sensitive areas have not yet been defined. By definition, constructing a greenfield 

railroad presents a major environmental challenge.

5.3.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Approximately 225 miles of ROW would be required along the abandoned portion of Route 

Alternative 3. This ROW would have to be acquired as a contiguous strip at least 50 feet 

wide and in a fashion that meets the requirements of railroad geometry. Much of the former 

ROW has been redeveloped into commercial and industrial businesses. ROW acquisition 

would present significant impacts to adjacent property owners. 

5.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4

Route Alternative 4 is currently owned by three railroads. The Regional Transportation 

Authority (Illinois), operated by Metra, owns the route from La Salle Street Station (the 

line’s terminus) to Joliet, Illinois. CSX Transportation owns the route from Joliet to Bureau, 

Illinois, but leases Utica to Bureau, Illinois to Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS). IAIS owns the 

route from Bureau, Illinois, to Council Bluffs. IAIS has trackage rights over CSX and Metra 

to Blue Island, Illinois. Originally, the entirety of this route was owned by the Chicago, Rock 

Island, and Pacific Railroad (the Rock Island). Upon the Rock Island’s bankruptcy in 1980, 

the route was sold, in pieces, to Metra and predecessor companies of CSX and IAIS. This 

route alternative is 490 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. 
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-7 October 2012

5.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 4 would serve the intermediate major communities of Joliet and Moline 

(one of the Quad Cities), Illinois; and Iowa City and Des Moines, Iowa. The total population 

within 20 miles of these intermediate stops is approximately 1,034,000. As described in 

Section 4.2.1.1, this excludes the population of Joliet because it is considered to be in the 

Chicago metropolitan area, and the population of the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs 

metropolitan areas was excluded from the analysis. Figure 5-4, located at the end of this 

chapter, shows the population at potential stations for Route Alternative 4. 

5.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 4 is similar in length to Route Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 4-A and thus would 

have a similar travel time between Chicago and Omaha based on length alone. Route 

Alternative 4-A has moderate curvature that may degrade travel time as passenger train 

speeds increase.

5.4.3 Technical Feasibility

Route Alternative 4 is a high-density commuter route in Chicago, a moderate-density freight 

route east of Homestead Junction, Iowa (approximately 20 miles west of Iowa City), and a 

low-density freight route between Homestead Junction and Council Bluffs. Current train 

traffic averages 10 to 14 trains per day between Chicago and Bureau, Illinois; 8 to 12 trains 

per day between Bureau and Des Moines; and 4 to 8 trains per day between Des Moines and 

Council Bluffs. Metra operates 46 weekday commuter trains between Chicago and station 

stops as far west as Joliet, Illinois. Freight train traffic is coordinated with the Chicago Metra 

commuter operations to operate off-peak and stages on main tracks to await off-peak time 

slots. 

Route Alternative 4 was extensively reconstructed in some portions to improve capacity and 

speed from Chicago westward after 1900, but the modernization project was not completed 

by the Rock Island and ceased in the early 1950s. Double-track ended at West Liberty, Iowa, 

222 miles west of Chicago. A major line relocation in the 1950s reduced curvature and 

gradient on 50 miles of track between Atlantic, Iowa, and Council Bluffs. The rail line was 

equipped with wayside signaling, but outside of the Chicago commuter territory, wayside 

signaling has been discontinued. Track structure and track speeds are commensurate with the 

moderate- to low-density freight train traffic; most of this route alternative is operated at a 

maximum speed of 40 mph. 

To accommodate passenger trains at 90 mph, additional trackage may have to be constructed 

to enable passenger trains to meet and overtake freight trains and each other. Only one of the 

two original tracks remains from Joliet to West Liberty, but in most areas, the grade for the 

second track is still in existence. This would help to reduce the footprint associated with 

construction of a new second track. In addition, some of the existing track is “offset” in the 

ROW, meaning that one side of the ROW has more room than the other for a second track, 

which would help to minimize ROW acquisition requirements. The original second track was 

likely on 12.5 foot track centers, meaning that any new construction would still require 

widening of the existing embankment in order to meet modern standards. 
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-8 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

The bridge over the Mississippi River is currently a double-track swing-span-type movable 

bridge structure, though only one track is used at any one time. While upgrades would be 

required, this structure has capacity for additional traffic, and a new bridge over the 

Mississippi River would likely be unnecessary. While the bridge opens an average of eight 

times daily for river traffic, the freight train volume over the bridge is not so high that this 

creates serious railroad congestion (as would be experienced at the similar bridges for Route 

Alternatives 2 and 5) to inhibit reliable schedules for passenger trains.

Route Alternative 4 cuts through the center of Des Moines and crosses UP’s “Spine Line” 

between Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Kansas City, Missouri, at grade, as well as UP’s yard 

leads and industrial switching leads for Des Moines. Some track reconfiguration and/or a 

grade separation may be required in this area to provide a reliable passenger operation and to 

avoid loss of freight capacity. 

West of Des Moines, Route Alternative 4 was historically single track. While for planning 

purposes it may be necessary to assume that a second track would be necessary for the entire 

route alternative, it is possible that capacity for passenger trains could be established with 

several sections of second main track and sidings, rather than adding a second main track for 

the entire distance. West of Des Moines, ROW may need to be acquired to accommodate a 

second main track or sidings. 

Route Alternative 4 is the only route alternative that does not directly enter Chicago Union 

Station. Construction of a connection between Route Alternative 4 and routes entering 

Chicago Union Station are possible, but would require acquisition of urban ROW, which 

potentially is disruptive and costly. Alternatively, Route Alternative 4 would not serve 

Chicago Union Station, and ridership and passenger convenience could be negatively 

affected through loss of connectivity with other high-speed passenger rail routes in the 

MWRRI system.

5.4.4 Economic Feasibility

Because eastern portions of Route Alternative 4 historically had a second main track, costs 

for re-establishing that second track would be reduced. Notably, the existing bridge over the 

Mississippi River still has two tracks, greatly reducing costs compared to other route 

alternatives (permitting and constructing a new bridge over the Mississippi River would 

likely cost in excess of $200 million). 

5.4.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

Route Alternative 4 appears to have no major environmental challenges. Portions of this 

route alternative were studied in 2009 and 2010 as part of the Chicago to Iowa City high 

speed rail project. Though the Chicago to Iowa City project contemplated two round trips 

rather than five, and 79 mph maximum speeds (with commensurately lower infrastructure 

requirements), the study indicated that environmental impacts would be minimal.

5.4.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

Route Alternative 4 passes through one FP and is adjacent to four FPs, passes through a state 

park, and is adjacent to five city parks in Illinois. This route alternative passes through two 

adjacent city parks and is adjacent to five city parks in Iowa. In addition, this route 
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-9 October 2012

alternative passes through heavy industrial areas in the Chicago area, two in north central and 

western Illinois, and one in Iowa. Finally, Route Alternative 4 passes through an area 

between quarries and the Illinois River in Illinois. 

Among the environmentally sensitive areas is the portion of the route alternative extending 

from Ottawa to Bureau, Illinois, which is located on structures along the bank of the Illinois 

River and is surrounded by wetlands and crosses the historic Hennepin Canal. 

Other possible locations for wetland impacts are in the Des Moines area and just west of 

Des Moines near Van Meter, Iowa.

5.4.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

The embankment east of West Liberty, Iowa, was, at one time, widened to support two main 

tracks, albeit on track centers of approximately 14 feet, which would likely reduce the 

amount of ROW acquisition required. 

Additional ROW may be required, particularly west of West Liberty. However, if the rail line 

were located in a manner that would allow for a future second track by offsetting the track 

constructed to one side of the ROW, property acquisitions would also be minimized. 

Additional research would be required to confirm this. 

5.5 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5

Route Alternative 5 is now owned entirely by BNSF. It is the southernmost of the route 

alternatives under consideration, extending from Chicago southward to Galesburg, Illinois, 

then west to Pacific Junction, Iowa, and then due north to Council Bluffs. This route 

alternative is 496 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. The route is 

used by Amtrak’s California Zephyr between Chicago and Pacific Junction, Iowa, and then a 

BNSF line on the west bank of the Missouri River near Plattsmouth, Nebraska, to access 

Omaha, bypassing Council Bluffs. 

5.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 5 would serve the intermediate major communities of Naperville and 

Galesburg, Illinois, and Burlington and Osceola, Iowa. The total population within 20 miles 

of these intermediate stops is approximately 167,000. As described in Section 4.2.1.1, this 

excludes the population of Naperville because it is considered to be in the Chicago 

metropolitan area, and the population of the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan 

areas was excluded from the analysis. Figure 5-5, located at the end of this chapter, shows 

the population at potential stations for Route Alternative 5.

5.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 5 is similar in length to Route Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 4-A and thus would 

have a similar travel time between Chicago and Omaha based on length alone. Route 

Alternative 5 has moderate curvature that may degrade travel time as passenger train speeds 

increase.
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-10 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

5.5.3 Technical Feasibility

Route Alternative 5 is a high-density freight train route from Chicago to Pacific Junction, 

Iowa, and is a low-density freight train route on the east bank of the Missouri River north to 

Council Bluffs. Route Alternative 5 hosts high-density Metra commuter train traffic between 

Chicago and Aurora, Illinois, as well as four Amtrak long-distance and four Amtrak regional 

trains daily between Chicago and Galesburg, Illinois. There are substantial railroad capacity 

constraints over this entire route alternative, including congestion at the Missouri River and 

Mississippi River bridges. Metra is now studying adding service from Aurora to Oswego, 

Illinois, with the exact number of trains unknown at this time. Current train traffic averages 

40 to 50 freight trains per day, and 64 weekday commuter trains between Chicago and station 

stops as far west as Aurora. Freight trains operate at average maximum speeds of 

approximately 60 mph, but trains with low horsepower/ton ratios decline to substantially 

slower speeds on ascending grades. Track structure and wayside signaling are commensurate 

with the capacity and speed of the route alternative. This route alternative is equipped with 

wayside signaling throughout. Freight train traffic in the Chicago area is carefully 

coordinated with Metra commuter traffic. Freight trains are effectively restricted from 

entering Chicago during the morning and evening commuter rush hours. As a result, freight 

trains stage on main tracks west of Chicago for movement during off-peak hours.

To accommodate passenger trains without degrading freight train capacity, substantial 

infrastructure may be required to enable overtakes of freight trains and meet/pass events for 

the Chicago-Omaha passenger trains, to intermesh with Metra commuter traffic, and to 

provide adequate windows for track maintenance. Capacity for overtake events may require 

an additional main track. Obstacles to constructing an additional main track include lack of 

unused, existing ROW, which based on ground features (for example, fence lines, buildings, 

and field boundaries) is wide enough for the existing two main tracks, but would, in most 

places, not accommodate a third main track without ROW acquisition along nearly all of the 

route alternative. Large bridges across the Mississippi and Missouri rivers are double-track. 

Additional main track capacity may require replacement or additional bridges. The 

Mississippi River bridge is particularly problematic as it is a movable bridge that opens an 

average of eight times daily for river traffic, creating substantial rail congestion due to heavy 

freight train traffic on this route alternative.

5.5.4 Economic Feasibility

Because Route Alternative 5 is at capacity, substantial additional capacity construction would 

be required. This would require adding an additional main track for much of the distance 

across Illinois and Iowa. 

5.5.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

Route Alternative 5 appears to have few major environmental challenges. Additional 

capacity would be required across the Mississippi River at Burlington, Iowa, which would 

require a major permitting effort.

5.5.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

Route Alternative 5 passes through two FPs and is adjacent to two FPs in Illinois, passes 

through one state forest and WMA in Iowa, and is adjacent to two county parks and a 
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-11 October 2012

wildlife area in Iowa. This route alternative passes through two city parks and is adjacent to 

15 city parks in Illinois. In addition to the areas near the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, this 

route alternative passes through an area of wetlands in Illinois and two areas of wetlands in 

Iowa. Finally, Route Alternative 5 passes through heavy industrial areas in the Chicago area, 

is adjacent to the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant near Burlington, Iowa, and adjacent to an 

industrial area in Council Bluffs. 

The major environmental hurdles are at the Mississippi River bridge and near Ottumwa, 

Iowa, where Route Alternative 5 is bounded by wetlands and recreational areas. 

5.5.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

The existing ROW is 100 feet wide in most areas (wide enough for two tracks, but not wide 

enough for three tracks) but widens to 120 or 150 feet in many areas. However, these areas of 

wide ROW tend to be short sections, linked by stretches of 100-foot-wide ROW. 

5.6 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4-A 

Route Alternative 4-A is composed of Route Alternative 5 between Chicago and Wyanet, 

Illinois, and Route Alternative 4 between Wyanet and Council Bluffs. This route alternative 

is 474 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. 

5.6.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 4-A would serve the intermediate major communities of Naperville and 

Moline, Illinois (one of the Quad Cities), and Iowa City and Des Moines, Iowa, which are the 

same communities served by Route Alternative 4 with the exception of Naperville, which is 

served by Route Alternative 5. The total population within 20 miles of these intermediate 

stops is approximately 1,034,000, the same population as Route Alternative 4. As described 

in Section 4.2.1.1, this excludes the population of Naperville because it is considered to be in 

the Chicago metropolitan area, and the population of the Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs 

metropolitan areas was excluded from the analysis. Figure 5-6, located at the end of this 

chapter, shows the population at potential stations for Route Alternative 4-A.

5.6.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 4-A is similar in length to Route Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and thus would 

have a similar travel time between Chicago and Omaha based on length alone. Route 

Alternative 4-A has moderate curvature that may degrade travel time as passenger train 

speeds increase.

5.6.3 Technical Feasibility

Route Alternative 4-A employs Route Alternative 5 between Chicago and Wyanet, Illinois, 

and Route Alternative 4 between Wyanet and Council Bluffs; therefore, the technical hurdles 

are those also found on the respective portions of Route Alternatives 5 and 4 (see Section 

5.5.6 and 5.4.6, respectively). The only unique new route component would be found at 

Wyanet, where a connection would be required between the BNSF and IAIS rail lines in one 

of the quadrants formed by the intersection of the two railroads. A high-speed connection 

capable of operation at 60 mph or greater may necessitate some wetland or historic resource 

impacts. This connection point is rural and abuts agricultural lands. 
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-12 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

The key difference between Route Alternative 4-A and Route Alternatives 4 and 5 

individually are:

1. Shorter distance than Route Alternatives 4 and 5 

2. Direct entrance to Chicago Union Station (not obtained in Route Alternative 4) 

3. Potentially less infrastructure requirements between Chicago and Wyanet, Illinois 

4. New route component near Wyanet, Illinois to connect BNSF and IAIS 

5. Higher population served than Route Alternative 5 

5.6.4 Economic Feasibility

The comparatively short connection between the BNSF and IAIS rail lines would pose no 

unusual cost challenge. The infrastructure differences between Route Alternatives 4 and 5 

between Chicago and Wyanet, Illinois, are complex and are not considered in this coarselevel screening. 

5.6.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

Route Alternative 4-A appears to have no major environmental challenges. The eastern 

portion of this route alternative was studied in 2009 and 2010 as part of the Chicago to Iowa 

City high speed rail project. Though the Chicago to Iowa City project contemplated two 

round trips rather than five, and 79 mph maximum speeds (with commensurately lower 

infrastructure requirements), the study indicated that environmental impacts would be 

minimal.

5.6.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

Route Alternative 4-A passes through two FPs and is adjacent to two FPs in Illinois. This 

route alternative passes through two city parks, and is adjacent to 15 city parks in Illinois, 

and passes through two adjacent city parks and is adjacent to five city parks in Iowa. In 

addition, this route alternative passes through heavy industrial areas in the Chicago area, 

two in northern Illinois, and one in Iowa. 

5.6.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

The ROW for Route Alternative 4-A is constrained in the Chicago area and presents 

challenges to expanding capacity. West of Aurora, Illinois, however, there may be adequate 

space to add an additional track with limited land acquisition. 

The ROW for Route Alternative 4-A east of Iowa City was at one time wide enough for two 

tracks, which should reduce the amount of ROW acquisition required. 

West of Iowa City, additional ROW may be required. However, if the rail line were located 

in a manner that would allow for a future second track (by offsetting the track constructed to 

one side of the ROW), property acquisitions would also be minimized. Additional research 

would be required to confirm this. 
Chapter 5

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-13 October 2012

5.7 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would result in the continued extensive use of automobiles, as well 

as airplane and bus transportation, along the Corridor. Additionally, Amtrak’s California 

Zephyr would continue along the Corridor, and other passenger rail projects could develop 

service along sections of the Corridor. 

5.7.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

The No-Build Alternative would not meet travel demand for passenger rail service along the 

Corridor because no additional transportation service would be provided. 

5.7.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the need for competitive and attractive travel 

modes between Chicago and Omaha because no new mode would be provided. The Project 

would not exist and would not provide a competitive option among existing travel modes.

5.7.3 Technical Feasibility

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility because the Project 

would not be constructed. Other passenger rail sections of the Corridor would be evaluated 

for technical feasibility on their own merits as independent projects. 

5.7.4 Economic Feasibility

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for economic feasibility because the Project 

would not be constructed. However, under the No-Build Alternative, other passenger rail 

sections of the Corridor could be independently determined to be economically feasible. 

5.7.5 Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges

The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative and would not present 

major environmental challenges. However, the current rail routes between Chicago and 

Omaha would continue to be used, resulting in continued minor environmental impacts such 

as air emissions, erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent waterbodies and 

wetlands, and noise. 

5.7.6 Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas

The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative and would not impact 

sensitive areas. However, the current rail routes between Chicago and Omaha would continue 

to be used, resulting in continued minor environmental impacts such as air emissions, erosion 

and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent waterbodies and wetlands, and noise near 

sensitive areas. Other travel modes would continue to be used and would likely be more 

congested in the future as travel demand increases, resulting in potential impacts on sensitive 

areas.
Chapter 5

Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 5-14 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

5.7.7 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative and would not require 

acquisition of ROW. However, other passenger rail sections of the Corridor could be 

developed and result in acquisition of ROW. Additionally, other travel modes could be more 

congested as travel demand increases, resulting in ROW acquisition for infrastructure 

improvements. 

5.8 SUMMARY

Of the six route alternatives, the greatest challenges are presented by Route Alternative 3. 

Not only would Route Alternative 3 have the highest cost, but also the permitting effort 

would be substantial. Establishing approximately 225 miles of new railroad ROW would 

create unacceptably high impacts on landowners, and the resulting permitting process would 

be extremely long. An extended permitting process could void the early baseline data prior to 

the permit being issued, thus requiring a second round of baseline data gathering and 

potentially requiring a re-evaluation of the findings of the Tier 1 EIS. Constructing 

essentially greenfield railroad for Route Alternative 3 would have significant impacts on 

communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. Former bridges across 

major rivers would need to be reconstructed at high costs and environmental impacts. In 

addition to the high cost of ROW acquisition and bridge construction, track and infrastructure 

would also need to be reestablished at an appreciable cost.

As a result of the extremely high environmental and economic hurdles to re-establishing this 

abandoned rail corridor and anticipated local opposition and controversy, Route Alternative 3 

is deemed unreasonable and is eliminated from further study. 

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Project. For a build 

alternative, the fact that the route alternative would not meet purpose and need would be 

justification for eliminating the route alternative from further evaluation. However, for the 

purposes of NEPA analysis, the No-Build Alternative will be carried forward for detailed 

evaluation in the Tier 1 Draft/Final EIS. The reasons for retaining the No-Build Alternative 

include a requirement to evaluate the impacts of no action under CEQ’s NEPA regulations 

(40 CFR 1502.14(d)), FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545), and the need to compare action alternatives against a baseline, which in the case of 

this Project would be the No-Build Alternative.

Subsequent studies will focus on Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 5, and 4-A. Route Alternative 5 

has minimal population along this route alternative—nearly an order of magnitude less than 

other routes—and its viability with respect to travel demand should be carefully considered 

as part of the fine-level screening. Conversely, Route Alternatives 4 and 4-A have very high 

populations along these route alternatives. 

Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, 5, and 4-A have been retained for further analysis because they 

appear sufficiently viable and merit further analysis. The additional analysis will include 

more detailed operational analysis to refine travel times, conceptual definition of impacts of 

superimposing passenger trains upon existing freight train traffic, and conceptual cost 

estimates. 

The coarse-level screening results are summarized in Table 5-1. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 5, Coarse-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 5-15 October 2012

Table 5-1. Route Alternative Comparison

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 

1 

Route Alternative 

2 

Route Alternative 

3 

Route Alternative 

4 

Route Alternative 

5 

Route Alternative 

4-A 

No-Build 

Alternative

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

Medium ridership 

potential

Medium 

ridership 

potential

Medium 

ridership 

potential

High ridership 

potential

Low ridership

potential

High ridership 

potential

No additional 

service

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

Poor 

competitiveness

Medium 

competitiveness

Medium 

competitiveness 

High 

competitiveness 

High 

competitiveness

High 

competitiveness 

No new travel 

mode

Technical 

Feasibility

Medium 

complexity

High due to 

heavy freight 

train traffic

Low complexity 

associated with 

new route

Medium 

complexity

High due to 

heavy freight 

train traffic

Medium 

complexity Not applicable

Economic 

Feasibility Medium cost High cost High cost due to 

ROW acquisition

Medium cost due 

to previous 

second track in 

ROW

High cost

Medium cost due 

to previous 

second track in 

ROW

Not applicable

Environmental 

Concerns: Major 

Challenges

Medium overall 

impacts

High overall 

impacts due to 

ROW acquisition 

and river 

crossings

Extremely high 

overall impacts 

due to ROW 

acquisition

Medium overall 

impacts

High overall 

impacts due to 

ROW acquisition 

and river 

crossings

Medium overall 

impacts

No overall 

impacts

Environmental 

Concerns: Sensitive 

Areas

Medium impacts

High impacts due 

to ROW 

acquisition

Extremely high 

impacts due to 

ROW acquisition

Medium impacts

High impacts due 

to ROW 

acquisition

Medium impacts No overall 

impacts

Environmental 

Concerns: Right-ofWayMedium impacts

High impacts due 

to ROW 

acquisition

Extremely high 

impacts due to 

ROW acquisition

Medium impacts

High impacts due 

to ROW 

acquisition

Medium impacts No overall 

impacts

Carried forward 

for fine-level 

screening?

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yesa

Note:

a While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it was carried forward to the fine-level screening to provide a basis of comparison to the 

other route alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545).
Chapter 5, Coarse-Level Screening Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

April 2012 5-16 Draft Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

!H !H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Omaha

Chicago

Council Bluffs

Elgin

Dubuque

Rockford

Fort Dodge Waterloo

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Route Alternative 1

Relative Population Served at Potential Stations

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

50 25

I

0 50

Miles

Scale

Legend

!H Potential Station Location

Route 1 (Canadian National Railway,

 former Illinois Central)

Cities over 50,000

Data Source: 2010 US Census

Note: Omaha/Council Bluffs and

Chicago Metropolitan Areas

(including Elgin, DeKalb,

Naperville and Joilet stations)

are not included in this analysis.

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Route Alternative 1

Proposed Stations

Population Within 

20 Miles

Rockford 418,121

Dubuque 129,066

Waterloo 165,356

Fort Dodge 61,713

Total 774,256

Route 1 Alternative Length Approximately 510 M iles

Sioux City

Lincoln

Des Moines

Ames Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Moline

Peoria

Bloomington

Springfield

Decatur

Champaign

Route Alternative 1 Length Approximately 510 Miles

5-1
!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Omaha

Chicago

Council Bluffs

Ames Dekalb

Clinton

Cedar Rapids

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Route Alternative 2

Relative Population Served at Potential Stations

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

50 25

I

0 50

Miles

Scale

Legend

!H Potential Station Location

Route 2

(Union Pacific Railroad, 

former Chicago &

North Western)

Cities over 50,000

Data Source: 2010 US Census

Note: Omaha/Council Bluffs and

Chicago Metropolitan Areas

(including Elgin, DeKalb,

Naperville and Joilet stations)

are not included in this analysis.

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Sioux City

Lincoln

Des Moines

Waterloo

Moline

Dubuque

Rockford

Peoria

Bloomington

Springfield

Decatur

Champaign

Route Alternative 2

Proposed Stations

Population Within 

20 Miles

Clinton 90,325

Cedar Rapids 285,157

Ames 148,458

Total 523,940

Route Alternative 2 Length Approximately 480 M iles

5-2
!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Omaha

Chicago

Council Bluffs

Slater

Marion

Savanna

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Route Alternative 3

Relative Population Served at Potential Stations

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

50 25

I

0 50

Miles

Scale

Legend

!H Potential Station Location

Route 3

(Canadian Pacific Railway

and BNSF Railway,

former Milwaukee Road)

Route 3 Abandoned Portion

Cities over 50,000

Data Source: 2010 US Census

Note: Omaha/Council Bluffs and

Chicago Metropolitan Areas

(including Elgin, DeKalb,

Naperville and Joilet stations)

are not included in this analysis.

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Sioux City

Lincoln

Des Moines

Ames

Waterloo

Iowa City

Moline

Dubuque Rockford

Peoria

Bloomington

Springfield

Decatur

Champaign

Route Alternative 3

Proposed Stations

Population Within 

20 Miles

Savanna 64,919

Marion 253,814

Slater 355,478

Total 674,211

Route Alternative 3 Length Approximately 480 M iles

5-3
!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

!H

!H

!H !H

!H

!H

!H

Omaha

Chicago

Council Bluffs

Joliet

Moline

Iowa City

Des Moines

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Route Alternative 4

Relative Population Served at Potential Stations

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

50 25

I

0 50

Miles

Scale

Legend

!H Potential Station Location

Route 4

(Iowa Interstate Railroad

and CSX Transportation,

former Rock Island)

Cities over 50,000

Data Source: 2010 US Census

Note: Omaha/Council Bluffs and

Chicago Metropolitan Areas

(including Elgin, DeKalb,

Naperville and Joilet stations)

are not included in this analysis.

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Sioux City

Lincoln

Ames

Waterloo

Cedar Rapids

Dubuque Rockford

Peoria

Bloomington

Springfield

Decatur

Champaign

Route Alternative 4

Proposed Stations

Population Within 

20 Miles

Moline 342,413

Iowa City 169,440

Des Moines 522,269

Total 1,034,122

Route Alternative 4 Length Approximately 490 M iles

5-4
!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Omaha

Chicago

Council Bluffs

Osceola Galesburg

Naperville

Burlington

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Route Alternative 5

Relative Population Served at Potential Stations

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

50 25

I

0 50

Miles

Scale

Legend

!H Potential Station Location

Route 5

(BNSF Railway, former

Chicago, Burlington &

Quincy)

Cities over 50,000

Data Source: 2010 US Census

Note: Omaha/Council Bluffs and

Chicago Metropolitan Areas

(including Elgin, DeKalb,

Naperville and Joilet stations)

are not included in this analysis.

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Sioux City

Lincoln

Des Moines

Ames

Waterloo

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Moline

Dubuque Rockford

Peoria

Bloomington

Springfield

Decatur

Champaign

Route Alternative 5

Proposed Stations

Population Within 

20 Miles

Galesburg 72,416

Burlington 72,365

Osceola 22,218

Total 166,999

Route Alternative 5 Length Approximately 500 M iles

5-5
!"a$

!"a$

%&g(

!"h$

!"`$

!"j$

!"f$

!"g$

!"i$

!"j$

!"b$

!"c$

!"k$

!"h$

!"h$

!"`$

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

!H

Omaha

Chicago

Council Bluffs

Moline Iowa City

Naperville

Des Moines

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

Route Alternative 4-A

Relative Population Served at Potential Stations

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

50 25

I

0 50

Miles

Scale

Legend

!H Potential Station Location

Route 4A (Iowa Interstate Railroad

and BNSF Railway)

Cities over 50,000

Data Source: 2010 US Census

Note: Omaha/Council Bluffs and

Chicago Metropolitan Areas

(including Elgin, DeKalb,

Naperville and Joilet stations)

are not included in this analysis.

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Missouri

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Sioux City

Lincoln

Ames

Waterloo

Cedar Rapids

Dubuque Rockford

Peoria

Bloomington

Springfield

Decatur

Champaign

Route Alternative 4-A

Proposed Stations

Population Within 

20 Miles

Moline 342,413

Iowa City 169,440

Des Moines 522,269

Total 1,034,122

Route Alternative 4-A Length Approximately 460 M iles

5-6
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 6

FINE-LEVEL SCREENING

Following coarse-level screening, each route alternative was evaluated against the fine-level 

screening criteria. Screening criteria developed along with the methodology for the 

alternatives analysis are presented in Section 4.2.2, and these screening criteria were refined 

following coarse-level screening. Table 4-2 presents the refined fine-level screening criteria, 

and the results of the fine-level screening for each route alternative carried forward through 

coarse-level screening are presented in Sections 6.1 through 6.5. Section 6.6 includes a finelevel screening of the No-Build Alternative. Although the No-Build Alternative did not meet 

the purpose and need for the Project, it was carried forward for evaluation based on CEQ’s 

NEPA requirement to evaluate impacts of no action and to serve as a baseline for comparison 

of the route alternatives. 

A summary of the screening results is provided in Section 6.7. As with coarse-level 

screening, the fine-level screening effort addressed the route alternatives from west of 

Chicago to Council Bluffs. In addition, the respective routes into Chicago were addressed 

during fine-level screening. Because all route alternatives converge to a common point at 

Council Bluffs, the portion of the route alternatives between Council Bluffs and Omaha was 

not included as a technical or economic criterion for comparison among the route alternatives 

(as discussed in Section 4.2.2.2.2, Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment), except for 

travel time comparison between the route alternatives and alternate travel modes. 

As discussed in Section 5.8, Route Alternative 3 was deemed unreasonable during coarselevel screening and was eliminated from further study. Therefore, Route Alternative 3 is not 

discussed below. 

For the fine-level analysis, buffers were applied to estimated current ROW for potential 

impact assessment based on the number of tracks currently present for a particular route 

alternative. The buffers in the fine-level analysis represent additional ROW that would have 

to be acquired for construction of additional track and improvements. On Route 

Alternatives 2 and 5, where there are already two existing tracks, the new track would need 

to be constructed approximately 45 to 50 feet away from the existing tracks to accommodate 

an access road between the tracks. On Route Alternatives 1, 4, and 4-A, where there is only 

one existing track, the new track would be constructed 25 feet away from the existing track. 

The acreage of the buffers was also divided into urban and rural categories, as appropriate, to 

accommodate additional assessment of potential impacts. Additional details on the buffers 

applied are included in the route alternative discussions in Sections 6.1 through 6.5. 

The route alternatives within the endpoint cities of the Corridor, Chicago and Omaha, were 

evaluated in a different fashion from the fine-level screening from the route alternatives 

between the cities. At Chicago, the five route alternatives have similar capacity and 

infrastructure attributes that create common technical and economic feasibility characteristics 

for all of the route alternatives. At Omaha, the five route alternatives would use a common 

alignment between Omaha and Council Bluffs, where the five route alternatives diverge onto 

separate paths across Iowa.
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

In Chicago, all five route alternatives evaluated in the fine-level screening host high-density 

commuter passenger rail, some host intercity passenger rail, and all host local freight trains 

and industrial switching. Route Alternatives 2 and 5 host high-density through freight train 

traffic. All five route alternatives have multiple crossings with other rail lines, and other 

trains frequently enter and exit the route alternatives within the urban area, with complexity 

of train routings and density of traffic increasing as the route alternatives approach their 

termini at Chicago Union Station or La Salle Street Station. It was assumed that the ChicagoOmaha passenger trains would operate within the Chicago terminal at the same speeds as 

present-day commuter trains, enabling the Chicago-Omaha trains to be slotted into existing 

commuter-train schedules to avoid the necessity for construction of additional main tracks 

that would enable operation of the Chicago-Omaha trains at higher speeds. The requirement 

for additional main track would create substantial impacts on the adjoining urban area as 

existing ROW on all five route alternatives in most locations within Chicago does not have 

sufficient room for an additional main track. Operation at higher speeds than commuter trains 

also has the potential to require extensive reconstruction of the wayside signal system, and 

may not be feasible within the technical limitations of grade-crossing signal systems. 

Consequently, this would require extensive separation of grade crossings, which could also 

create substantial impacts on the adjoining urban area. Accordingly, it was assumed that the 

existing alignments of the route alternatives were suitable for support of the Chicago to 

Omaha service’s proposed frequency of five round-trips daily, by adjusting train schedules to 

slot passenger trains into existing commuter train schedules. This assumption would require 

confirmation in a Tier 2 study. 

At Council Bluffs, all five route alternatives converge, after crossing Iowa, to a common 

point where historically the freight railroads between Chicago and Omaha interchanged 

freight traffic with the freight railroads between Omaha and the West. At Omaha, there are at 

present two route possibilities across the Missouri River between Council Bluffs and Omaha. 

Two bridges were constructed across the Missouri River. The first constructed bridge (later 

replaced and modernized) carried the Union Pacific Railroad, and handled all of the 

passenger trains crossing the river between Council Bluffs and Omaha, and nearly all of the 

freight trains. The second constructed bridge carried the Illinois Central Railroad, and 

handled local trains serving industrial districts in Omaha. The Union Pacific bridge, a highlevel, fixed, double-track bridge that has vertical clearance to normal marine navigation, is in 

use. The condition of the UP bridge was not investigated in detail, and its capability to host 

passenger trains for a long duration without rehabilitation or replacement is not known. The 

Illinois Central bridge, a low-level, single-track, double-swing bridge, is not in use and is in 

poor condition, with nonfunctional mechanical and electrical systems. The Union Pacific 

route passes alongside the former Omaha Union Station (now a museum) and near the former 

Burlington Route Station (now derelict). Amtrak’s current California Zephyr station is 

located adjacent to the Burlington Route Station. 

Capacity on the existing UP Missouri River bridge is likely to be insufficient for the addition 

of five passenger trains each direction operating daily on a fixed schedule. Council Bluffs is a 

major crew change and regional yard for UP. Freight trains frequently are lined up and 

waiting to either enter the Council Bluffs yard or accept crews. Switching activities at the 

Council Bluffs yard frequently require use of one of the main tracks on the bridge. Speed 

limits for freight trains are low for reasons of safety. UP currently routes some freight trains 

directionally through Council Bluffs to avoid congestion at this bridge, on the steep 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-3 October 2012

descending eastward grade through Omaha toward the bridge, and in the Council Bluffs 

terminal. Some eastward freight trains pass through Council Bluffs, while some westward 

freight trains use the UP Blair Subdivision, crossing the Missouri River between Missouri 

Junction, Iowa, and Blair, Nebraska, and rejoining UP’s transcontinental main line at 

Fremont, Nebraska. It may be possible to create capacity on the Missouri River bridge and in 

the Council Bluffs terminal area by adding capacity to the UP Blair Subdivision, which may 

entail a second Missouri River bridge at Blair to supplement or replace the existing single 

track bridge at Blair. RTC modeling would be required to explore these possibilities. Because 

the two endpoint terminals of the Corridor represent a separate case, they were evaluated 

separately from the routes between the terminals.

6.1 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1

Route Alternative 1is the northernmost of the route alternatives and is currently owned by 

CN. This route alternative is 516 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council 

Bluffs.

6.1.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 1 would serve the intermediate major communities of Elgin and Rockford, 

Illinois, and Dubuque, Waterloo, and Fort Dodge, Iowa. The total population within 20 miles 

of these intermediate stops is approximately 774,000. Annual ridership and revenue from 

tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2020 were forecast as:

• 505,000 to 590,000 riders and $15.2 to $17.7 million for 79 mph service 

• 560,000 to 650,000 riders and $17.0 to $19.9 million for 90 mph service 

• 615,000 to 715,000 riders and $19.0 to $22.2 million for 110 mph service 

Ridership and revenue from tickets sold are third highest of the route alternatives, but 

revenue from tickets sold is relatively low for the ridership, as ridership is heavily influenced 

by short-haul, low-revenue from tickets sold trips between Chicago and Rockford, Illinois. 

Depending on the speed regime, ridership was estimated at approximately 175,000 to 

220,000 fewer riders than Route Alternative 4-A, and revenue from tickets sold was 

estimated at $9.0 million to $11.7 million less than Route Alternative 4-A; Route 

Alternative 4-A had the highest estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold of all 

alternatives (Table 6-6 includes estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold data). 

Route Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need for travel demand because of low 

ridership and revenue from tickets sold forecasts west of Rockford, Illinois. 

6.1.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 1 has travel times that are the slowest of the five route alternatives, and is 

not competitive with personal automobiles between Chicago and Omaha. Route Alternative 1 

does not meet the purpose and need of providing a competitive and attractive travel mode 

because of its very slow travel times, which is uncompetitive with the automobile as an 

alternative mode. However, Route Alternative 1 provides modal interconnectivity at all of its 

intermediate cities, and terminates at Chicago Union Station, meeting the purpose and need 

for modal interconnectivity. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.1.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity

Route Alternative 1 did not historically originate at Chicago Union Station, but instead 

originated at Central Station, nearer to the lakefront. However, a connection can be made to 

main line trackage leading to Chicago Union Station either via the Belt Railway of Chicago 

or the Western Avenue Corridor. This connection trackage is highly constrained by freight 

capacity and may require additional infrastructure to accommodate the proposed ChicagoOmaha passenger trains. 

Route Alternative 1 is a light- to moderate-density, moderate-speed (40 mph) freight-only 

rail line once it emerges west of the Chicago core (west of the Indiana Harbor Belt) to 

Council Bluffs. Freight traffic decreases westward from approximately 12 trains daily 

between Chicago and Waterloo, Iowa, to approximately 8 trains daily between Waterloo and 

Fort Dodge, Iowa, to approximately 4 trains daily between Fort Dodge and Council Bluffs. 

Route Alternative 1’s present-day track and train-control infrastructure is matched to its 

freight speeds and traffic density. Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signaling is active from 

Chicago to Fort Dodge. From Fort Dodge to Council Bluffs, wayside signaling is absent and 

trains are operated by Track Warrant Control (TWC). Sidings of sufficient length to meetand-pass freight trains are located approximately once every 25 miles; however, most sidings 

and the parallel main track at siding locations have industry leads off them and thus are used 

also for switching industries. Grades and curvature on Route Alternative 1 are moderate 

except in northwestern Illinois and northeastern Iowa, a distance of approximately 100 miles, 

where the profile crosses numerous drainages on grades of up to 1.0 percent and curvature is 

as tight as 8 degrees. 

Between Portage and East Dubuque, Illinois, a distance of 13 miles, Route Alternative 1 uses 

shared trackage with a high-density BNSF freight line along the Mississippi River. All trains 

operate on two BNSF main tracks that are located at the base of the bluffs along the east bank 

of the river. At East Dubuque, trains on Route Alternative 1 swing inshore from the BNSF, 

then pass through an 851-foot tunnel, emerge to cross the BNSF main tracks at grade, then 

cross the Mississippi River on a 336-foot pin-connected truss swing bridge constructed in 

1900. Trackage in Dubuque is BNSF and CP. 

Route Alternative 1 would likely require the addition of a second main track from Chicago to 

Waterloo to afford sufficient capacity for passenger trains to have the desired speed and 

reliability, and to enable freight trains to continue to serve industries. Between Waterloo and 

Council Bluffs, a second main track may only be required in locations where industries are 

located, with sidings of sufficient length for freight trains at intervals sufficient for efficient 

operation of freight trains. Because there are numerous at-grade crossings on this route 

alternative, sidings cannot hold freight trains for long periods of time for passenger train 

meet/pass events. It may be more feasible to construct long sections of second main track, 

instead of sidings, so that freight trains can make rolling meets with passenger trains and 

avoid blocking crossings for extended periods of time. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-5 October 2012

6.1.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

The alignment between Chicago and Freeport, Illinois, is relatively straight and is conducive 

to high-speed passenger rail with the addition of required main track capacity for passenger 

trains. However, between Freeport and Waterloo, the alignment is poorly adapted to highspeed passenger rail because of many sharp curves, the tunnel and at-grade crossing of the 

BNSF rail line at East Dubuque, the Dubuque industrial district, and lengthy grades of up to 

1.0 percent. Between Dubuque and Waterloo, the alignment twists along drainage valleys 

and is not readily adaptable for higher speeds. 

Because of the limited capacity and low speeds of the existing track and signal infrastructure, 

substantial additional construction would be required. Where the existing main track can be 

used, it would require heavy upgrade. A second main track at 25-foot track centers is feasible 

in most places, but in the drainages on either side of the Mississippi River, construction of a 

second main track would require extensive cut and fill work. 

6.1.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

The major structures along Route Alternative 1 include the single-track Mississippi River 

Bridge, and the Des Moines River Bridge near Fort Dodge, Iowa. Upgrades or even doubletracking of the tunnel at East Dubuque would likely also be necessary in order to generate 

adequate capacity and suitable passenger train speeds in this vicinity. The Mississippi River 

Bridge may create a challenge as it opens approximately eight times per day. Sufficient track 

capacity on either side of the bridge to hold passenger trains while the bridge is open may be 

costly to create. Replacement of the bridge is potentially necessary due to its age, capacity, 

and as it is single-track.

6.1.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

Grade crossings on Route Alternative 1 are more numerous because of the route alternative 

length, but present no exceptional challenges when compared to other route alternatives. On 

a per grade-crossing basis, costs for improving or revising grade crossings would be similar 

to Route Alternative 4 and the Wyanet-Council Bluffs portion of Route Alternative 4-A, and 

less than Route Alternatives 2 and 5 where new, three-track grade crossings with tracks at up 

to 45-foot centers would be necessary. 

6.1.7 Economic Feasibility

Route Alternative 1 has an estimated cost that is approximately $550,000,000 more than 

Route Alternative 4, the least expensive route alternative. Although the current railroad has 

moderate to low freight train density with single track, the relatively high number is 

indicative of the fact that this is the longest of the alternatives. The major factors in the cost 

are:

• The length of the route alternative (42 miles longer than other route alternatives) 

with concomitant additional costs for new earthwork, track, and signals. Because 

of the extra route length, this factor dominates the economics of Route 

Alternative 1. 

• Replacement or modification of the East Dubuque Tunnel, and modification or 

replacement of the Mississippi River Bridge.
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-6 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Route Alternative 1 has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost 

differentiators other than its greater length, which would proportionally add fuel, labor, and 

track and equipment maintenance charges. Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that 

trainsets would average about 1.5 turns per day on every route alternative except Route

Alternative 1, where one or potentially two additional trainsets may be required compared to 

the other route alternatives to account for late-arriving trains and less time for overnight 

maintenance. 

6.1.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for 

Route Alternative 1 are identified in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1. Route Alternative 1 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer

Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer

Named Streams 42 streams (67stream crossings; 22,000 feet of streams)

Floodplain Mississippi and Missouri River: 191 acres

Wetlands 260 wetlands (190 acres)

Farmland 1,500 acres

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Critical Habitat 4 Topeka shiner streams

NRHP-listed Properties

3 properties: 

• Zephaniah Kidder House in Epworth, Iowa

• Mills Tower Historic District in Iowa Falls, Iowa

• George W. Rogers Company Shot Tower in 

Dubuque, Iowa

Potential Section 4(f) (may also 

be Section 6(f)) Properties

29 properties:

• 8 forest preserves in Illinois

• Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge

• 1 state preserve and 1 wildlife management area 

(WMA) in Iowa

• 12 city parks in the Chicago area

• 3 city parks in Iowa

• The aforementioned NRHP-listed properties

Superfund NPL sites

5 sites:

• Tri County Landfill in South Elgin, Illinois

• Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination 

in Rockford, Illinois

• People’s Natural Gas in Dubuque, Iowa

• Waterloo Sycamore-Elm Street Coal Gasification 

Plant in Waterloo, Iowa

• Omaha Lead Site in Omaha, 

With regard to noise, vibration and environmental justice populations, most of the area along 

Route Alternative 1 in the Chicago urban area (from Chicago to South Elgin, Illinois) is 

moderately to densely developed residential area. Other substantial residential areas in close 

proximity to Route Alternative 1 are located in Rockford, Freeport, Lena, and Galena, 

Illinois; and Dyersville, Waterloo, Webster City, Fort Dodge, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-7 October 2012

Route Alternative 1 passes through mostly industrial or lightly developed areas in Dubuque, 

Iowa. 

6.1.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet wide along the entire 516-mile route alternative. 

An estimated 35-foot buffer on the north side of existing ROW was assumed to be needed for 

Route Alternative 1, resulting in approximately 2,200 acres of new ROW that would be 

required. Of the ROW that would likely be acquired, approximately 600 acres are located in 

urban areas, and approximately 1,600 acres are located in rural areas. 

6.2 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2

Route Alternative 2 is south of Route Alternative 1. Route Alternative 2 is owned by UP. 

This route alternative is 479 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. 

6.2.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 2 would serve the intermediate major communities of DeKalb, Illinois; and 

Clinton, Cedar Rapids, and Ames, Iowa. The total population within 20 miles of these 

intermediate stops is approximately 523,940. Annual ridership and revenue from tickets sold 

for an assumed initial operation year of 2020 were forecast as:

• 375,000 to 440,000 riders and $14.7 to $17.1 million for 79 mph service 

• 415,000 to 485,000 riders and $16.3 to $19.1 million for 90 mph service 

• 475,000 to 550,000 riders and $18.9 to $22.0 million for 110 mph service

Ridership and revenue from tickets sold are next to the lowest of the route alternatives. 

Depending on the speed regime, ridership was estimated at approximately 305,000 to 

385,000 fewer riders than Route Alternative 4-A, and revenue from tickets sold was 

estimated at $9.5 million to $11.9 million less than Route Alternative 4-A; Route Alternative 

4-A had the highest estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold of all alternatives 

(Table 6-6 includes estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold data). Route 2 does not 

meet the purpose and need for travel demand because of low ridership and revenue from 

tickets sold forecasts.

6.2.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 2 has travel times that are the fastest of the five route alternatives, and is 

competitive with personal auto between Chicago and Omaha. Consequently, Route 

Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of providing a competitive and attractive travel 

mode. Route Alternative 2 provides modal interconnectivity at all of its intermediate cities, 

and terminates at Chicago Union Station, thus meeting the purpose and need for modal 

interconnectivity. 

6.2.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity

Route Alternative 2 did not historically originate at Chicago Union Station, but instead 

originated at North Western Station, several blocks north and west of Chicago Union Station. 

However, a connection can be made to main line trackage leading to Chicago Union Station 

via Route Alternative 3 at or near Western Avenue. This trackage is highly constrained by 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-8 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

commuter-train capacity and may require additional infrastructure to accommodate the 

proposed Chicago-Omaha passenger trains. Slots in the commuter schedules for ChicagoOmaha passenger trains may not be feasible, and schedules for Chicago-Omaha service may 

have to be designed to fit around commuter schedules. Freight trains are generally 

constrained by commuter-train schedules. Track time for maintenance in the commuter-train 

territory may be constrained by the addition of Chicago-Omaha trains, requiring night-time 

track maintenance.

Route Alternative 2 is a high-density double- and triple-main-track commuter and freight rail 

line from Chicago to Elburn, with 56 weekday commuter trains at present and up to 80 

freight trains per day. From Elburn to Missouri Valley, Iowa, the route is a high-density, 

double-main-track, freight-only line, with up to 80 freight trains per day. From Missouri 

Valley to Council Bluffs, the route is single track, mostly directional eastward, with up to 50 

freight trains per day. Most freight trains travel in the fairly narrow speed range of 50 to 60 

mph, but speeds of unit coal and grain trains decline to as little as 20 mph on ascending 

grades. Passenger service operating at 79, 90, or 110 mph would require many instances in a 

passenger train’s trip where it would overtake a freight train. An example of the number of 

overtakes, assuming hourly freight trains, is presented in Figure 6-1, and the capacity impact 

of such overtakes is shown in Figure 4-1. 

Route Alternative 1’s present day track and train-control infrastructure is matched to its 

freight speeds and traffic density. UP has invested substantial sums since the 1990s to 

reinstall second main track that had been removed by the Chicago & North Western, to 

improve wayside signaling, and to replace the Kate Shelley Bridge (Des Moines River) near 

Boone, Iowa, with a new double-track high bridge. CTC signaling is active from Chicago to 

Council Bluffs. Industry leads are used to isolate local trains and unit trains working at grain 

elevators from the main tracks. Grades and curvature are moderate throughout this route. 

Route Alternative 2 would likely require the addition of a third main track from the western 

boundary of the commuter territory to Missouri Valley, and a second main track from 

Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs, in order to obtain sufficient capacity for passenger trains. 

Passenger train/passenger train meet/pass events would likely require the addition of sections 

of fourth main track in order to avoid impedance with freight trains that are frequently 

closely spaced on the two existing main tracks.

6.2.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

Route Alternative 2 is relatively straight compared to the other route alternatives. However, it 

has the highest density of freight traffic of all the route alternatives. Addition of a third main 

track (and fourth main track, in some locations) presents extensive ROW, grading, and gradecrossing challenges. Current standards for UP include a maintenance access road between 

two of the main tracks where there are three or more main tracks. This is because roadway 

access is necessary for each track to enable efficient maintenance of track; where there are 

only two tracks, each track can be accessed from its respective side of the ROW. However, 

where there are three tracks, the track in the middle has no roadway access. This requires a 

third main track to be separated from existing double-track by 45 to 50 feet, in order to 

construct a roadway between the existing two tracks and the new, outer track. This is a major 

factor driving the complexity of the earthwork along Route Alternative 2.
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-9 October 2012

At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve customers, new connections would 

need to be established to account for the third main track. With 45- to 50-foot track centers, 

this would require a substantial realignment of the industrial spur because spurs generally 

approach the railroad ROW at an angle. By moving the nearest main line 45 feet closer to the 

industrial spur, it would be necessary to revise curves and turnouts at each location. In each 

case, additional crossovers would have to be provided to connect the new passenger track to 

the existing freight tracks so that freight trains could efficiently access the industrial spurs. 

Such crossovers come with a high cost, not only for the earthwork and track construction 

activities, but also from the signaling revisions that would be necessary in the main line.

The only area where the 45-foot track centers might not be required is in the short stretch 

between Missouri Valley and Council Bluffs, Iowa, where there is only a single track today. 

A second track would be needed in this area, but it is possible that it could be constructed on 

20- or 25-foot centers to the existing track.

The additional space required for the third main track may impinge on many of Route 

Alternative 2’s existing rail-served customers located within the footprint of the third main 

track required to provide sufficient capacity for passenger trains. Relocation of industrial 

customers, or shifting of all main tracks to enable the tracks to skirt the footprint of industrial 

customers, may be required. This may be difficult in urban areas where industrial customers 

are located on both sides of the main tracks. 

6.2.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

Major structures on Route Alternative 2 are the Mississippi River Bridge at Clinton, Iowa, 

and the Kate Shelly High Bridge over the Des Moines River. The Mississippi River Bridge is 

a swing-span bridge that opens approximately eight times per day. In each case, there is only 

a two-track bridge and, in each case, an additional bridge would likely be required to avoid 

freight train congestion at either end of the bridge that would occur if the route narrowed 

from three to two main tracks to cross the bridges. These are major structures because of 

their size and, in the case of the Mississippi River bridge at Clinton, a new bridge would 

likely be required to be high-level to avoid hindrance to river navigation. 

6.2.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

Grade crossings on Route Alternative 2 present a distinct challenge where the new track is 45 

feet or more away from the existing tracks. In this case, the distance between the two outside 

tracks would be in excess of 60 feet. Because railroad tracks are often higher than the 

surrounding roadway, the width of the “hump” at the grade crossings would be substantial, 

and the roadway profile at each crossing would also require substantial revision to account 

for the wider hump at the tracks. Finally, the existing grade crossing warning devices would 

require renewal; because the electric circuitry on each track is interconnected, the addition of 

a third track would necessitate revisions to the existing circuitry that would require new 

equipment in order to provide continuity of grade-crossing signal protection during 

construction, testing, and cut-over of new grade-crossing signal equipment. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-10 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.2.7 Economic Feasibility

Route Alternative 2 presents many technical challenges and has an estimated cost that is 

approximately $1,005,000,000 more than Route Alternative 4, the least expensive route 

alternative. The major factors that contribute to the complexity are:

• The additional, third track located 45 feet away from the existing tracks and the 

associated earthwork. This would extend for well over 400 miles. 

• Substantial modifications to industrial spurs and potential relocations of industrial 

customers necessitated by the wide track centers.

• New signaling systems for all three tracks for the entire route alternative 

extending over 400 miles. 

• Two major bridges. 

Route Alternative 2 has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost 

differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 4, 5, and 4-A, except for a greater complexity 

of control points (track and signal systems) and wayside and grade-crossing signal systems 

compared to Route Alternatives 1, 4, and 4-A. Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that 

trainsets would average about 1.5 turns per day on this route alternative. Trainset 

requirements are similar to Route Alternatives 4, 5, and 4-A, and potentially two fewer 

trainsets are required than Route Alternative 1. 

6.2.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for 

Route Alternative 2 are identified in Table 6-2. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-11 October 2012

Table 6-2. Route Alternative 2 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer

Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer

Named Streams 29 streams (45 stream crossings; 10,700 feet of streams)

Floodplain Mississippi and Missouri River: 61 acres

Wetlands 320 wetlands (250 acres)

Farmland 2,120 acres

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Critical Habitat 4 Topeka shiner streams

NRHP-listed Properties

3 properties: 

• American Express Building in Carroll, Iowa

• Chicago & North Western Passenger Depot and 

Baggage Room in Carroll, Iowa

• Chicago & North Western Railway Power House 

in Chicago, Illinois.

Potential Section 4(f) (may also 

be Section 6(f)) Properties

31 properties: 

• 8 forest preserves in Illinois

• Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge

• 1 state park and 1 natural area in Illinois

• 3 WMAs and 1 natural area in Iowa

• 11 city parks in Illinois

• 2 city parks in Iowa

• The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites

Superfund NPL sites

4 sites:

• Kerr-McGee Reed-Keppler Park in West 

Chicago, Illinois

• Kerr-McGee Sewage Treatment Plant in West 

Chicago, Illinois

• Lawrence Todtz Farm in Comanche, Illinois

• Omaha Lead Site in Omaha, Nebraska 

Most of the area along Route Alternative 2 in the Chicago urban area (from Chicago to West 

Chicago, Illinois) is moderately to densely developed residential area. Other substantial 

residential areas in close proximity to Route Alternative 2 are located in DeKalb, Dixon, 

Sterling, and Morrison, Illinois; and Nevada, Ames, Boone, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. Route 

Alternative 2 passes through mostly industrial or lightly developed areas in Clinton, Cedar 

Rapids, Tama, Marshalltown, and Carroll, Iowa. The closest residential area near the existing 

Amtrak Station in Omaha is located about 400 feet south of the rail line. 

6.2.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet along the entire 479-mile route alternative. An 

estimated 55-foot buffer on the north side of existing ROW was assumed to be needed for 

Route Alternative 2, resulting in approximately 3,200 acres of new ROW that would be 

required. Of the ROW that would likely be acquired, approximately 950 acres are located in 

urban areas, and approximately 2,250 acres are located in rural areas.

6.3 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4

Route Alternative 4 is currently owned by three railroads. The Regional Transportation 

Authority (Illinois), operated by Metra, owns the route from La Salle Street Station (the 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-12 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

line’s terminus) to Joliet, Illinois. CSX Transportation owns the route from Joliet to Bureau, 

Illinois, but leases Utica to Bureau, Illinois, to IAIS. IAIS owns the route from Bureau, 

Illinois, to Council Bluffs. IAIS has trackage rights over CSX and Metra to Blue Island, 

Illinois. Originally, the entirety of this route was owned by the Rock Island. Upon the Rock 

Island’s bankruptcy in 1980, the route was sold, in pieces, to Metra and predecessor 

companies of CSX and IAIS. This route alternative is 490 miles long between Chicago 

Union Station and Council Bluffs. 

6.3.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 4 would serve the intermediate major communities of Joliet and Moline 

(one of the Quad Cities), Illinois; and Iowa City and Des Moines, Iowa. The total population 

within 20 miles of these intermediate stops is approximately 1,034,000. Annual ridership and 

revenue from tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2020 were forecast as: 

• 640,000 to 745,000 riders and $22.9 to $26.7 million for 79 mph service 

• 690,000 to 805,000 riders and $24.9 to $29.1 million for 90 mph service

• 755,000 to 885,000 riders and $27.6 to $32.2 million for 110 mph service 

Ridership and revenue from tickets sold are second highest of the route alternatives. 

Depending on the speed regime, ridership was estimated at approximately 40,000 to 50,000 

fewer riders than Route Alternative 4-A, and revenue from tickets sold was estimated at $1.3 

million to $1.7 million less than Route Alternative 4-A; Route Alternative 4-A had the 

highest estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold of all alternatives (Table 6-6 

includes estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold data). Route 4 meets the purpose 

and need for travel demand. 

6.3.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 4 has travel times that are nearly as fast as Route Alternatives 4-A and 5, 

and is competitive with personal auto between Chicago and Omaha. Consequently, Route 

Alternative 4 meets the purpose and need of providing a competitive and attractive travel 

mode. Route Alternative 4 provides modal interconnectivity at all of its intermediate cities, 

but does not terminate at Chicago Union Station, unless a connection is made from its route 

to La Salle Street Station to Chicago Union Station. This connection would be costly, have 

impacts on urban areas that the connection would be constructed through, and is not 

practical. Absent this connection, Route Alternative 4 provides substantially less modal 

interconnectivity at Chicago and therefore does not meet the purpose and need. 

6.3.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity

Route Alternative 4 did not historically originate at Chicago Union Station, but instead 

originated at La Salle Street Station, several blocks south and to the east of Union Station. 

There are several potential locations where a connection could be constructed from Route 

Alternative 4 to main line trackage that leads to Chicago Union Station; however these would 

require extensive acquisition of urban property, which would be costly and disruptive to 

neighborhoods, and are not considered to be practical. 

Route Alternative 4 is a high-density commuter railroad from Chicago to Joliet, Illinois. 

There is little freight traffic between Chicago and Blue Island, where most CSX and IAIS 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-13 October 2012

freight trains enter and exit Route Alternative 4. Freight traffic is constrained by commutertrain schedules between Blue Island and Joliet. The Chicago to Joliet is highly constrained by 

commuter-train capacity and may require additional infrastructure to accommodate the 

proposed Chicago-Omaha passenger trains. Slots in the commuter schedules for passenger 

trains may not be feasible, and schedules for Chicago-Omaha service may have to be 

designed to fit around commuter schedules. Track time for maintenance in the commutertrain territory may be constrained by the addition of Chicago-Omaha trains, requiring nighttime track maintenance.

From Joliet west through the Quad Cities to Homestead Junction, Iowa, approximately 20 

miles west of Iowa City, Route Alternative 4 is a moderate-density, moderate-speed (40 

mph) freight-only railroad. At Homestead Junction, freight traffic from the industrialized 

Cedar Rapids area enters the route for movement east. The Quad Cities is heavily congested 

as three railroads (IAIS, BNSF, and CP) converge to switch industries and interchange cars 

on a single main track that also serves as the switch lead to two railroad yards.

West of Homestead Junction, Route Alternative 4 is low-density except at Des Moines, 

where it crosses Union Pacific Railroad’s “Spine Line” that runs between Kansas City and 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, in a rail terminal that has considerable congestion caused by industrial 

switching, yard switching, and interchange. Many freight trains operating on this route 

alternative exceed the length of the sidings, and freight/train meet/pass events are often 

conducted at terminals instead of at sidings. As part of the operations analysis conducted in 

2010 in support of the Chicago to Iowa City High Speed Rail Service Development Plan, it 

was determined that the line was at capacity for the existing freight traffic between Wyanet 

and Iowa City, and the addition of two round trip passenger trains, would tax the existing 

system and require the addition of several sidings as well as and a second main track through 

the Quad Cities Terminal. 

Route Alternative 4’s present-day track and train-control infrastructure is matched to its 

freight speeds and traffic density. CTC is active from Chicago to Joliet. From Joliet to 

Council Bluffs, the wayside signal system has been deactivated and trains are operated by 

TWC. Sidings of sufficient length to meet-and-pass freight trains are located at 25- to 50-

mile spacing; however, most sidings and the parallel main track at siding locations have 

industry leads off them and thus are used also for switching industries. Grades on Route 

Alternative 4 are moderate and curvature is light except in two locations: the first is where 

the route follows the Illinois River from Joliet to Bureau, and the second is between Des 

Moines and Atlantic, Iowa. 

Route Alternative 4 would likely require the addition of a second main track from Joliet to 

Homestead Junction to afford sufficient capacity for passenger trains to have the desired 

speed and reliability, and to enable freight trains to continue to serve industries. Between 

Homestead Junction and Council Bluffs, a second main track may only be required in 

locations where industries are located, with sidings of sufficient length for freight trains at 

intervals sufficient for efficient operation of freight trains, as well as second main track 

through the Des Moines terminal. Because there are numerous at-grade crossings on this 

route alternative, sidings cannot hold freight trains for long periods of time for passenger 

train meet/pass events. It may be more feasible to construct long sections of second main 

track, instead of sidings, so that freight trains can make rolling meets with passenger trains 

and avoid blocking crossings for extended periods of time. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-14 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.3.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

The alignment for this route alternative does not access Chicago Union Station, but instead 

serves La Salle Street Station, several blocks south and east of Chicago Union Station. La 

Salle Street is a stub-end station (trains enter and leave only from the station) that serves 

Metra commuter trains only. Chicago Union Station is a through station (trains can enter or 

leave from both the south and the north, or continue through the station in one direction), and 

serves Metra commuter trains as well as Amtrak long-distance and regional trains. Chicago 

Union Station is Amtrak’s Midwest hub, as well as the proposed hub for the Midwest 

Regional Rail System, and thus offers connectivity among existing and proposed future 

passenger-rail routes that is not afforded by La Salle Street Station. 

Chicago Union Station is directly served by Route Alternative 5 (from the south) and can be 

served by Route Alternatives 1 and 2. Route Alternative 4 approaches Chicago’s downtown 

core from its south side and at four locations could potentially connect to rail lines that would 

afford direct access to Chicago Union Station: 

• At Joliet, Route Alternative 4 crosses the BNSF transcontinental freight main line 

and UP’s Chicago-St. Louis line at grade. A connection track constructed in the 

northwest quadrant of this crossing would afford access to either the BNSF or UP. 

This would in turn require use of either the Belt Railway of Chicago at McCook, 

or a connection at the Western Avenue corridor crossing, to obtain access to 

Route Alternative 5 to Union Station. The Joliet connection would occur through 

the Joliet downtown district and must mitigate heavy freight train traffic either on 

BNSF, the Belt Railway of Chicago, or the Western Avenue Corridor, and is not 

practical.

• At Englewood, Route Alternative 4 crosses the Norfolk Southern line to Union 

Station (used by Amtrak long-distance trains). A connection track constructed in 

the northwest quadrant would obtain access to Chicago Union Station. The 

Englewood connection would occur across an intersection of Interstate 

Highways 90 and 94, and two Chicago Transit Authority heavy-rail rapid transit 

lines, or alternatively, west of I-90 through approximately 15 blocks of residential 

neighborhood, and is not practical. 

• At West 40th Street, Route Alternative 4 junctions with an NS freight line that 

runs west to Ashland Avenue Yard. Approximately 1⁄2 mile to the west, this 

freight line passes under the NS route to Chicago Union Station used by Amtrak 

long-distance trains. A connection track constructed in the northeast quadrant 

would obtain access to Chicago Union Station. This connection would occur in an 

industrial neighborhood, but present significant challenges to overcome vertical 

differential with surface streets, and must mitigate heavy freight traffic on the NS 

line to Ashland Avenue. This connection is not practical. 

• Immediately south of La Salle Street Station, Route Alternative 4 could connect 

to Route Alternative 5 by constructing a connection through either residential 

neighborhoods or a park, and crossing the South Branch of the Chicago River. 

This connection is not practical. 

The alignment for this route alternative is favorable for high speed rail except along the 

Illinois River, and between Des Moines and Atlantic, Iowa, where it is moderately curved. 

The most favorable characteristic is that between Joliet and West Liberty, Iowa 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-15 October 2012

(approximately 15 miles east of Iowa City), the route was expanded to two main tracks in the 

1900-1950 era, but one track has since been removed. Though the proposed second track 

would be approximately 20 to 25 feet from the existing track, the original embankment could 

be incorporated as part of the new earthwork, thus generating potentially substantial savings. 

West of West Liberty, entirely new embankment would have to be constructed for the second 

track. Unlike Route Alternatives 2 and 5, however, because there is only one track currently 

in existence, there is no need for an access road between tracks; both the existing and new 

tracks could be accessed from their respective sides of the ROW.

Because of the 20 to 25-foot track centers, the revisions associated with industrial spurs 

would be less substantial compared with those route alternatives that would build the new 

track on 45-foot centers to the existing tracks. This is because the narrower track centers 

create less disruption to the geometry of the existing spur tracks. 

Because of the limited capacity and low speeds of the existing track and the lack of signal 

infrastructure, substantial additional construction would be required. Where the existing main 

track can be used, it would require heavy upgrade. Second main track at 25-foot track centers 

is feasible in most places without heavy earthwork.

6.3.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

Route Alternative 4 presents a favorable situation with respect to major structures, with only 

one major structure, the double-track, swing-span, Government Bridge across the Mississippi 

River. A new structure across the Mississippi River is likely to not be required because the 

existing bridge has two tracks, though the second track is not at present in place across the 

fixed approach spans. Detailed analysis of the main Mississippi River span and approach 

spans has not been conducted to determine their continued long-term capability for service 

without substantial repair, rehabilitation, or replacement, but during the prior Chicago-Iowa 

City study work, no serious issues were identified. 

At the moveable span itself, a small section of second track remains. This is crucial because 

this track would likely be “grandfathered” with respect to marine clearance requirements, 

meaning that no clearance variance would be required here as would likely be required by the 

U.S. Coast Guard for additional tracks across the Mississippi River on Route Alternatives 1, 

2 and 5. All the more important is the fact that constructing a new moveable span would be, 

by far, the most expensive portion of a new structure. 

Unlike many of the other route alternatives, a major structure would likely be required at 

Des Moines, to provide a grade separation of Route Alternative 4 with the north-south 

oriented UP Spine Line that at present crosses Route Alternative 4 at grade, and also serves a 

large regional classification yard. This intersection is heavily used at present, with many 

trains each day on the UP route, and continuous switching of UP’s Des Moines yard and 

industries. Construction of a grade separation may require replacement of lost yard capacity 

track if there is insufficient room for the new track and approaches. 

6.3.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

Grade crossings on Route Alternative 4 present no exceptional challenges when compared to 

other route alternatives. Because many of the grade crossings of Route Alternative 4 already 

have roadway geometry and side entrances arranged for the now-missing second main track, 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-16 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

it is expected that the addition of a second main track at grade crossings at a 25-foot track 

center would not be a major technical hurdle. While there would be impacts on the existing 

grade-crossing circuitry and the roadway profiles, the costs would be modest. 

6.3.7 Economic Feasibility

Route Alternative 4 is the least expensive route alternative compared to other route 

alternatives. This is chiefly because:

• Much of the route was previously constructed as double track, and the 

embankment can be reused

• Where required, a new second main track could be at 25-foot centers while still 

allowing for maintenance access to each track, translating to lower construction 

complexity and thus lower construction costs, than those route alternatives that 

currently have two tracks and that would require a third track, at 45-foot track 

centers. 

• The existing Mississippi River Bridge is double-track.

• Only one major structure is likely to be required: a grade-separation at Des 

Moines. 

Route Alternative 4 has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost 

differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 4-A, and is substantially shorter 

than Route Alternative 1. Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that trainsets would 

average about 1.5 turns per day on this route alternative. Trainset requirements are similar to 

Route Alternatives 2, 5, and 4-A, and potentially two fewer trainsets are required than Route 

Alternative 1. 

6.3.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for 

Route Alternative 4 are identified in Table 6-3. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-17 October 2012

Table 6-3. Route Alternative 4 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer

Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer

Named Streams 41 streams (52 stream crossings; 21,200 feet of streams)

Floodplain Mississippi and Missouri River: 40 acres

Wetlands 280 wetlands (190 acres)

Farmland 1,240 acres

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Critical Habitat 1 Topeka shiner stream

NRHP-listed Properties

9 properties: 

• Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Depot 

in Marseilles, Illinois

• Colonel Joseph Young Block in Davenport, Iowa

• Littig Brothers Eagle Brewery in Davenport, 

Iowa

• City Market in Davenport, Iowa

• Bonaventura Heinz House in Davenport, Iowa

• Adair Viaduct in Adair, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 

Passenger Station in Iowa City, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island, &Pacific Railroad Depot 

in Wilton, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island, &Pacific Railroad 

Passenger Depot in Council Bluffs, Iowa

Potential Section 4(f) (may also 

be Section 6(f)) Properties

27 properties: 

• 5 forest preserves in Illinois

• 1 state park and 5 city parks in Illinois

• 7 city parks in Iowa

• The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites

Superfund NPL sites

7 sites:

• BP Amoco Chemical Company in Channahon, 

Illinois

• Mattheisen Hegler Zinc in La Salle, Illinois

• Ottawa City Landfill in La Salle, Illinois

• Mobil Mining and Minerals in De Pue, Illinois

• Des Moines TCE (trichloroethylene) in Des 

Moines, Iowa

• Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination in 

Des Moines, Iowa

• Omaha Lead Site in Omaha, Nebraska 

Most of the area along Route Alternative 4 in the Chicago urban area (from Chicago to Joliet, 

Illinois) is moderately to densely developed residential area. Other substantial residential 

areas in close proximity to Route Alternative 4 are located in Morris, Marseilles, Ottawa, 

La Salle, Peru, Silvis, East Moline, and Moline, Illinois; and Davenport, Iowa City, and 

Grinnell, Iowa. Route Alternative 4 passes through mostly industrial or lightly developed 

areas in Geneseo, Illinois; and Newton, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. The 

closest residential area near the existing Amtrak Station in Omaha is located about 400 feet 

south of the rail line. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-18 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.3.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet along the entire 490-mile route alternative. An 

estimated 35-foot buffer on the north side of existing ROW was assumed to be needed for 

Route Alternative 4, resulting in approximately 2,100 acres of new ROW that would be 

required. Of the ROW that would likely be acquired, approximately 800 acres are located in 

urban areas, and approximately 1,300 acres are located in rural areas.

6.4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5

Route Alternative 5 is now owned entirely by BNSF except for trackage immediately at 

Chicago Union Station. It is the southernmost of the route alternatives under consideration, 

extending from Chicago southward to Galesburg, Illinois, then west to Pacific Junction, 

Iowa, and then due north to Council Bluffs. This route alternative is 496 miles long between 

Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. The route is used by Amtrak’s California Zephyr

between Chicago and Pacific Junction, Iowa, and then a BNSF line on the west bank of the 

Missouri River near Plattsmouth, Nebraska, to access Omaha, bypassing Council Bluffs. 

6.4.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 5 would serve the intermediate major communities of Naperville and 

Galesburg, Illinois, and Burlington and Osceola, Iowa. The total population within 20 miles 

of these intermediate stops is approximately 167,000. Annual ridership and revenue from 

tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2020 were forecast as: 

• 255,000 to 295,000 riders and $11.2 to $13.0 million for 79 mph service 

• 285,000 to 330,000 riders and $12.5 to $14.5 million for 90 mph service 

• 315,000 to 370,000 riders and $14.3 to $16.6 million for 110 mph service 

Ridership and revenue from tickets sold are lowest of the route alternatives (Table 6-6 

includes estimated ridership and revenue from tickets sold data). Depending on the speed 

regime, ridership was estimated at approximately 425,000 to 565,000 fewer riders than Route 

Alternative 4-A, and revenue from tickets sold was estimated at $13.0 million to $17.3 

million less than Route Alternative 4-A; Route Alternative 4-A had the highest estimated 

ridership and revenue from tickets sold of all alternatives (Table 6-6 includes estimated 

ridership and revenue from tickets sold data). Route Alternative 5 does not meet the purpose 

and need for travel demand with only a range of 255,000 to 370,000 riders. 

6.4.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 5 has travel times that are the third fastest, and nearly as fast as Route 

Alternatives 2 and 4-A, and is competitive with personal auto between Chicago and Omaha. 

Consequently, Route Alternative 5 meets the purpose and need of providing a competitive 

and attractive travel mode. Although Route Alternative 5 serves Chicago Union Station, it 

provides substantially less modal interconnectivity at intermediate cities than Route 

Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 4-A, and thus does not meet the purpose and need for modal 

interconnectivity. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-19 October 2012

6.4.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity

Route Alternative 5 originates at Chicago Union Station, the proposed hub of the Midwest 

Regional Rail System, and provides a triple-track route as far west as Aurora, the western 

end of commuter-rail service. This trackage is highly constrained by commuter-train capacity 

and may require additional infrastructure to accommodate the proposed Chicago-Omaha 

passenger trains. Slots in the commuter schedules for Chicago-Omaha passenger trains may 

not be feasible, and schedules for Chicago-Omaha service may have to be designed to fit 

around commuter schedules. Freight trains are generally constrained by commuter-train 

schedules. Track time for maintenance in the commuter-train territory may be constrained by 

the addition of Chicago-Omaha trains, requiring night-time track maintenance.

Route Alternative 5 is a high-density double- and triple-main-track commuter and freight rail 

line from Chicago to Aurora, with 64 weekday commuter trains at present and up to 50 

freight trains per day, as well as four Amtrak long-distance and four Amtrak regional 

passenger trains daily. From Aurora to Galesburg, Illinois, the route has moderate-density 

freight traffic and eight Amtrak trains per day, but freight traffic includes coal trains that are 

frequently staged in this section on one of the two main tracks, while awaiting connection or 

commuter-train slots in Chicago. From Galesburg to Pacific Junction, Iowa (approximately 

15 miles south of Council Bluffs), the route is mostly double-main-track, freight-only, with 

up to 50 freight trains per day. From Pacific Junction to Council Bluffs, the route is single 

track, with 4 to 6 freight trains per day. Most freight trains travel in the fairly narrow speed 

range of 50 to 60 mph, but speeds of unit coal and grain trains decline to as little as 20 mph 

on ascending grades. Passenger service operating at 79, 90, or 110 mph would require many 

instances in passenger train’s trip where it would overtake a freight train. An example of the 

number of overtakes, assuming hourly freight trains, is presented in Figure 6-1, and the 

capacity impact of such overtakes is shown in Figure 4-1. 

Route Alternative 5’s present day track and train-control infrastructure is matched to its 

freight speeds and traffic density. CTC signaling or current-of-traffic Automatic Block 

Signals are active from Chicago to Pacific Junction. From Pacific Junction to Council Bluffs, 

the main track is operated by TWC. Industry leads are used to isolate local trains and unit 

trains working at grain elevators from the main tracks between Chicago and Pacific Junction. 

Grades and curvature are moderate throughout this route. 

Route Alternative 5 would likely require the addition of a third main track from the western 

boundary of the commuter territory to Pacific Junction, and a second main track from Pacific 

Junction to Council Bluffs, in order to obtain sufficient capacity for passenger trains. 

Passenger train/passenger train meet/pass events would likely require the addition of sections 

of a fourth main track in order to avoid impedance with freight trains that are frequently 

closely spaced on the two existing main tracks.

6.4.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

Route Alternative 5 is relatively straight compared to the other route alternatives, though not 

as straight as Route Alternative 2. However, it has the second-highest density of freight 

traffic of the route alternatives. Addition of a third main track (and fourth main track, in some 

locations) presents extensive ROW, grading, and grade-crossing challenges. Current 

standards for BNSF include a maintenance access road between two of the main tracks where 

there are three or more main tracks. This is because roadway access is necessary for each 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-20 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

track to enable efficient maintenance of track; where there are only two tracks, each track can 

be accessed from its respective side of the ROW. However, where there are three tracks, the 

track in the middle has no roadway access. This requires a third main track to be separated 

from existing double-track by 45 to 50 feet, in order to construct a roadway between the 

existing two tracks and the new, outer track. This is a major factor driving the complexity of 

the earthwork along Route Alternative 5.

At industrial spurs, where tracks leave the ROW to serve customers, new connections would 

need to be established to account for the third main track. With 45- to 50-foot track centers, 

this would require a substantial realignment of the industrial spur because spurs generally 

approach the railroad ROW at an angle. By moving the nearest main line 45 feet closer to the 

industrial spur, it would be necessary to revise curves and turnouts at each location. In each 

case, additional crossovers would have to be provided to connect the new passenger track to 

the existing freight tracks so that freight trains could efficiently access the industrial spurs. 

Such crossovers come with a high cost, not only for the earthwork and track construction 

activities, but also from the signaling revisions that would be necessary in the main line.

The only area where the 45-foot track centers might not be required is in the short stretch 

between Pacific Junction and Council Bluffs, Iowa, where there is only a single track today. 

A second track would be needed in this area, but it is possible that it could be constructed on 

20- or 25-foot centers to the existing track.

The additional space required for the third main track may impinge on many of Route 

Alternative 5’s existing rail-served customers located within the footprint of the third main 

track required to provide sufficient capacity for passenger trains. Relocation of industrial 

customers, or shifting of all main tracks to enable the tracks to skirt the footprint of industrial 

customers, may be required. This may be difficult in urban areas where industrial customers 

are located on both sides of the main tracks. 

Route Alternative 5 passes through hilly terrain in southern Iowa and has many stream 

crossings. Addition of a third main track presents numerous challenges for side-hill cuts, fills, 

and stream crossings.

6.4.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

The only major structure on Route Alternative 5 is the Mississippi River Bridge at 

Burlington, Iowa. The Mississippi River Bridge is a double-track, lift-span bridge that opens 

approximately eight times per day. BNSF has recently renewed this bridge and the fixed 

approach spans. Train speeds to the west of the bridge are slow due to curvature, urban 

development, and industrial development. An additional bridge would likely be required to 

avoid freight train congestion at either end of the bridge that would occur if the route 

narrowed from three to two main tracks at the bridge. A new bridge would likely be required 

to have high clearance to avoid hindrance to river navigation. 

6.4.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

Grade crossings on Route Alternative 5 present a distinct challenge where the new track is 45 

feet or more away from the existing tracks. In this case, the distance between the two outside 

tracks would be in excess of 60 feet. Because railroad tracks are often higher than the 

surrounding roadway, the width of the “hump” at the grade crossings would be substantial, 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-21 October 2012

and the roadway profile at each crossing would also require substantial revision to account 

for the wider hump at the tracks. Finally, the existing grade crossing warning devices would 

require renewal; because the electric circuitry on each track is interconnected, the addition of 

a third track would necessitate revisions to the existing circuitry that would require new

equipment in order to provide continuity of grade-crossing signal protection during 

construction, testing, and cut-over of new grade-crossing signal equipment. 

6.4.7 Economic Feasibility

Route Alternative 5 presents many technical challenges and has an estimated cost that is 

approximately $1,230,600,000 more than Route Alternative 4, the least expensive route 

alternative. The major factors that contribute to the complexity are:

• The additional, third track located 45 feet away from the existing tracks and the 

associated earthwork. This would extend for well over 400 miles. This track 

would require heavy earthwork due to the hilly terrain of southern Iowa, and has 

numerous drainage crossings requiring bridging. 

• Substantial modifications to industrial spurs and potential relocations of industrial 

customers necessitated by the wide track centers.

• New signaling systems for all three tracks for the entire route alternative 

extending over 400 miles. 

• One major bridge.

Route Alternative 5 has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost 

differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 2, 4, and 4-A, except for a greater complexity 

of control points (track and signal systems) and wayside and grade-crossing signal systems 

compared to Route Alternatives 1, 4, and 4-A. Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that 

trainsets would average about 1.5 turns per day on this route alternative. Trainset 

requirements are similar to Route Alternatives 2, 4, and 4-A, and potentially two fewer 

trainsets are required than Route Alternative 1. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-22 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.4.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for 

Route Alternative 5 are identified in Table 6-4. 

Table 6-4. Route Alternative 5 Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer

Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer

Named Streams 48 streams (74 stream crossings; 19,000 feet of streams)

Floodplain Mississippi and Missouri River: 160 acres

Wetlands 340 wetlands (210 acres)

Farmland 2,030 acres

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Critical Habitat None

NRHP-listed Properties

2 properties: 

• Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Depot in Red 

Oak, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad 

Passenger Depot in Council Bluffs, Iowa

Potential Section 4(f) (may also 

be Section 6(f)) Properties

25 properties: 

• 4 forest preserves in Illinois

• 1 state forest and 1 WMA in Iowa

• 2 county parks in Iowa

• 15 city parks in Illinois

• The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites

Superfund NPL sites

3 sites:

• Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Burlington, 

Iowa

• Fairfield Coal Gasification Plant in Fairfield, 

Iowa

• Omaha Lead Site in Omaha, Nebraska

The area along Route Alternative 5 in the Chicago urban area (from Chicago to Montgomery, 

Illinois) is a mix of industrial, commercial, and moderately to densely developed residential 

area. Other substantial residential areas in close proximity to Route Alternative 5 are located 

in Plano and Galesburg, Illinois. The urban areas of Somonauk, Mendota, Princeton, and 

Kewanee, Illinois; and Burlington, Mount Pleasant, Fairfield, Ottumwa, Osceola, Red Oak, 

Glenwood, and Council Bluffs, Iowa, are all a mix of industrial, commercial, and open space 

areas, with no substantial urban areas near the rail corridor. The closest residential area near 

the existing Amtrak Station in Omaha is located about 400 feet south of the rail line. 

6.4.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet along the entire 496-mile route alternative. An 

estimated 50-foot buffer on the south side of existing ROW was assumed to be needed for 

Route Alternative 5, resulting in approximately 3,000 acres of new ROW that would be 

required. Of the ROW that would likely be acquired, approximately 850 acres are located in 

urban areas, and approximately 2,150 acres are located in rural areas.
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-23 October 2012

6.5 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4-A 

Route Alternative 4-A is composed of Route Alternative 5 between Chicago and Wyanet, 

Illinois, and Route Alternative 4 between Wyanet and Council Bluffs. This route alternative 

is 474 miles long between Chicago Union Station and Council Bluffs. 

6.5.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

Route Alternative 4-A would serve the intermediate major communities of Naperville and 

Moline, Illinois (one of the Quad Cities), and Iowa City and Des Moines, Iowa, which are the 

same communities served by Route Alternative 4 with the exception of Naperville, which is 

served by Route Alternative 5. The total population within 20 miles of these intermediate 

stops is approximately 1,034,000, the same population as Route Alternative 4. Annual 

ridership and revenue from tickets sold for an assumed initial operation year of 2020 were 

forecast as:

• 680,000 to 795,000 riders and $24.2 to $28.3 million for 79 mph service 

• 735,000 to 855,000 riders and $26.4 to $30.8 million for 90 mph service

• 800,000 to 935,000 riders and $29.1 to $33.9 million for 110 mph service 

Ridership and revenue from tickets sold are the highest of the route alternatives. Route 4-A 

meets the purpose and need for travel demand. 

6.5.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

Route Alternative 4-A has travel times that are the second fastest, and is competitive with 

personal auto between Chicago and Omaha. Consequently, Route Alternative 4-A meets the 

purpose and need of providing a competitive and attractive travel mode. Route Alternative 4-

A provides modal interconnectivity at all of its intermediate cities and serves Chicago Union 

Station, thus meeting the purpose and need for modal interconnectivity. 

6.5.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity 

Route Alternative 4-A originates at Chicago Union Station, the proposed hub of the Midwest 

Regional Rail System, and provides a triple-track route as far west as Aurora, the western 

end of commuter-rail service. This trackage is highly constrained by commuter-train capacity 

and may require additional infrastructure to accommodate the proposed Chicago-Omaha 

passenger trains. Slots in the commuter schedules for Chicago-Omaha passenger trains may 

not be feasible, and schedules for Chicago-Omaha service may have to be designed to fit 

around commuter schedules. Freight trains are generally constrained by commuter-train 

schedules. Track time for maintenance in the commuter-train territory may be constrained by 

the addition of Chicago-Omaha trains, requiring night-time track maintenance.

Route Alternative 4-A is a high-density double- and triple-main-track commuter and freight 

rail line from Chicago to Aurora, with 64 weekday commuter trains at present and up to 50 

freight trains per day, as well as four Amtrak long-distance and four Amtrak regional 

passenger trains daily. From Aurora to Wyanet, Illinois, the route has moderate-density 

freight traffic and eight Amtrak trains per day, but freight traffic includes coal trains that are 

frequently staged in this section on one of the two main tracks, while awaiting connection or 

commuter-train slots in Chicago. From Wyanet west through the Quad Cities to Homestead 

Junction, Iowa, approximately 20 miles west of Iowa City, Route Alternative 4-A is a 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-24 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

moderate-density, moderate-speed (40 mph) freight-only railroad. At Homestead Junction, 

freight traffic from the industrialized Cedar Rapids area enters the route for movement east. 

The Quad Cities is heavily congested as three railroads (IAIS, BNSF, and CP) converge to 

switch industries and interchange cars on a single main track that also serves as the switch 

lead to two yards. 

West of Homestead Junction, Route Alternative 4-A is low-density except at Des Moines, 

where it crosses Union Pacific Railroad’s “Spine Line” that runs between Kansas City and 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, in a rail terminal that has considerable congestion caused by industrial 

switching, yard switching, and interchange. Many freight trains operating on this route 

alternative exceed the length of the sidings, and freight/train meet/pass events are often 

conducted at terminals instead of at sidings. As part of the operations analysis conducted in 

2010 in support of the Chicago to Iowa City High Speed Rail Service Development Plan, it 

was determined that the line was at capacity for the existing freight traffic between Wyanet 

and Iowa City, and the addition of two round trip passenger trains would tax the existing 

system and require the addition of several sidings and a second main track through the Quad 

Cities Terminal. 

Route Alternative 4-A’s present-day track and train-control infrastructure is matched to its 

freight speeds and traffic density. CTC is active from Chicago to Wyanet on this two-maintrack, and generally straight and flat portion of the route. From Wyanet to Council Bluffs, the 

wayside signal system has been deactivated and trains are operated by TWC. West of 

Wyanet, sidings of sufficient length to meet-and-pass freight trains are located at 25- to 50-

mile spacing; however, most sidings and the parallel main track at siding locations have 

industry leads off them and thus are used also for switching industries. Grades on Route 

Alternative 4-A are moderate and curvature is light, except between Des Moines and 

Atlantic, Iowa. 

Route Alternative 4-A would likely require the addition of a third main track from Aurora to 

Wyanet, and a second main track from Wyanet to Homestead Junction, to afford sufficient 

capacity for passenger trains to have the desired speed and reliability, and to enable freight 

trains to continue to serve industries. Between Homestead Junction and Council Bluffs, a 

second main track may only be required in locations where industries are located, with 

sidings of sufficient length for freight trains at intervals sufficient for efficient operation of 

freight trains, as well as second main track through the Des Moines terminal. Because there 

are numerous at-grade crossings on this route alternative, sidings cannot hold freight trains 

for long periods of time for passenger train meet/pass events. It may be more feasible to 

construct long sections of second main track, instead of sidings, so that freight trains can 

make rolling meets with passenger trains and avoid blocking crossings for extended periods 

of time.

6.5.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

The alignment for this route alternative is favorable for high speed rail except between Des 

Moines and Atlantic, Iowa, where it is moderately curved. The most favorable characteristic 

is that between Wyanet and West Liberty, Iowa (approximately 15 miles east of Iowa City), 

the route was expanded to two main tracks in the 1900-1950 era, but one track has since been 

removed. Though the proposed second track would be approximately 20 to 25 feet from the 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-25 October 2012

existing track, the original embankment could be incorporated as part of the new earthwork, 

thus generating potentially substantial savings. 

West of West Liberty, entirely new embankment would have to be constructed for the second 

track. Unlike Route Alternatives 2 and 5, however, because there is only one track currently 

in existence, there is no need for an access road between tracks in this segment; both the 

existing and new tracks could be accessed from their respective sides of the ROW. 

6.5.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

Route Alternative 4-A presents a favorable situation with respect to major structures, with 

only one major structure, the double-track, swing-span, Government Bridge across the 

Mississippi River. A new structure across the Mississippi River is likely to not be required 

because the existing bridge has two tracks, though the second track is not at present in place 

across the fixed approach spans. Detailed analysis of the main Mississippi River span and 

approach spans has not been conducted to determine their continued long-term capability for 

service without substantial repair, rehabilitation, or replacement, but during the prior 

Chicago-Iowa City study work, no serious issues were identified. 

At the moveable span itself, a small section of second track remains. This is crucial because 

this track would likely be “grandfathered” with respect to marine clearance requirements, 

meaning that no clearance variance would be required here as would likely be required by the 

U.S. Coast Guard for additional tracks across the Mississippi River on Route Alternatives 1, 

2 and 5. All the more important is the fact that constructing a new moveable span would be, 

by far, the most expensive portion of a new structure. 

Unlike many of the other route alternatives, a major structure would likely be required at 

Des Moines, to provide a grade separation of Route Alternative 4-A with the north-south 

oriented UP Spine Line that at present crosses Route Alternative 4-A at grade, and also 

serves a large regional classification yard. This intersection is heavily used at present, with 

many trains each day on the UP route, and continuous switching of UP’s Des Moines yard 

and industries. Construction of a grade separation may require replacement of lost yard 

capacity track if there is insufficient room for the new track and approaches. 

6.5.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

Grade crossings on Route Alternative 4-A present no exceptional challenges when compared 

to other route alternatives, except in the Chicago-Wyanet portion. Because many of the 

grade crossings of Route Alternative 4-A already have roadway geometry and side entrances 

arranged for the now-missing second main track, it is expected that the addition of a second 

main track at grade crossings at a 25-foot track center would not be a major technical hurdle. 

The existing two-main-track section from Aurora to Wyanet has a relatively low number of 

grade crossings, avoiding much of the expense and challenge that obtains to Route 

Alternatives 2 and 5 as a whole. While there would be impacts on the existing grade-crossing 

circuitry and the roadway profiles for the addition of an additional main track, the costs 

would be modest compared to modifications on Route Alternatives 4 and 5 where a 

substantial number of new, three-track grade crossings with tracks at up to 45-foot centers 

would be necessary. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-26 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.5.7 Economic Feasibility

The economic feasibility of Route Alternative 4-A is favorable compared to other route 

alternatives and is approximately $147,200,000 more than Route Alternative 4, the least 

expensive route alternative. This is chiefly because:

• The addition of third main track is limited to the Aurora-Wyanet portion 

• Where a second main track is added to an existing single main track, the new 

main track could be at 25-foot centers while still allowing for maintenance access 

to each track, translating to lower construction complexity and thus lower 

construction costs than those route alternatives that currently have two tracks and 

would require a third track at 45-foot track centers. 

• The existing Mississippi River Bridge is double-track.

• Only one major structure is likely to be required: a grade-separation at Des 

Moines. 

• East of Wyanet, Illinois, Route Alternative 4-A would be more complex because 

the existing ROW between Chicago Union Station and Aurora, Illinois, is 

constrained; an additional track would require ROW acquisition. 

Note that Route Alternative 4-A’s cost does not include a connection to Chicago Union 

Station.

Route Alternative 4-A has no outstanding operating, maintenance, or equipment cost 

differentiators compared to Route Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, and is substantially shorter than 

Route Alternative 1. Trainset equipment turn analysis indicates that trainsets would average 

about 1.5 turns per day on this route alternative. Trainset requirements are similar to Route

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5, and potentially two fewer trainsets are required than Route 

Alternative 1. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-27 October 2012

6.5.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

The environmental resources present within the estimated existing ROW and buffer for 

Route Alternative 4-A are identified in Table 6-5. 

Table 6-5. Route Alternative 4-A Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer

Environmental Resource Resources within ROW and Buffer

Named Streams 39 streams (44 stream crossings; 9,000 feet of streams)

Floodplain Mississippi and Missouri River: 41 acres

Wetlands 220 wetlands (120 acres)

Farmland 1,370 acres

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Critical Habitat 1 Topeka shiner stream

NRHP-listed Properties

8 properties: 

• Colonel Joseph Young Block in Davenport, Iowa

• Littig Brothers Eagle Brewery in Davenport, 

Iowa

• City Market in Davenport, Iowa

• Bonaventura Heinz House in Davenport, Iowa

• Adair Viaduct in Adair, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad 

Passenger Station in Iowa City, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad Depot 

in Wilton, Iowa

• Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad 

Passenger Depot in Council Bluffs, Iowa

Potential Section 4(f) (may also 

be Section 6(f)) Properties

36 properties: 

• 4 forest preserves in Illinois

• 17 city parks in Illinois

• 7 city parks in Iowa

• The aforementioned NRHP-listed sites

Superfund NPL sites

3 sites:

• Des Moines TCE in Des Moines, Iowa

• Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination in 

Des Moines, Iowa

• Omaha Lead Site in Omaha, Nebraska 

The area along Route Alternative 4-A in the Chicago urban area (from Chicago to 

Montgomery, Illinois) is a mix of industrial, commercial, and moderately to densely 

developed residential area. Other substantial residential areas in close proximity to Route 

Alternative 4-A are located in Plano, Silvis, East Moline, and Moline, Illinois; and 

Davenport, Iowa City, and Grinnell, Iowa. Route Alternative 4-A passes through mostly 

industrial or lightly developed areas in Geneseo, Somonauk, Mendota, and Princeton, 

Illinois; and Newton, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. The closest residential 

area near the existing Amtrak Station in Omaha is located about 400 feet south of the rail 

line. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-28 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

6.5.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet along the entire 474-mile route alternative. An 

estimated 50-foot buffer on the south side of existing ROW from Chicago to Wyanet, 

Illinois, and a 35-foot buffer on the north side of existing ROW from Wyanet, Illinois, to 

Omaha was assumed to be needed for Route Alternative 4-A, resulting in approximately 

2,200 acres of new ROW that would be required. The potential ROW needed for a 

connection at Wyanet between IAIS and BNSF track was included in the buffer. Of the ROW 

that would likely be acquired, approximately 800 acres are located in urban areas, and 

approximately 1,400 acres are located in rural areas.

6.6 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative would result in the continued extensive use of automobiles, as well 

as airplane and bus transportation, along the Chicago to Omaha corridor. Additionally, 

Amtrak’s California Zephyr would continue along the corridor, and other passenger rail 

projects could develop service along sections of the corridor. 

6.6.1 Purpose and Need: Travel Demand

The No-Build Alternative would not meet travel demand for passenger rail service along the 

Chicago to Omaha corridor because no additional transportation service would be provided. 

6.6.2 Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the need for competitive and attractive travel 

modes between Chicago and Omaha because no new mode would be provided. The Project 

would not exist as an option to spur more competition among existing travel modes. 

6.6.3 Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of passenger and 

freight capacity because the Project would not be constructed. Other passenger rail sections 

of the Chicago to Omaha corridor would be evaluated for technical feasibility for passenger 

and freight capacity on their own merits as independent projects. 

6.6.4 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of alignment because 

the Project would not be constructed. Other passenger rail sections of the Chicago to Omaha 

corridor would be evaluated for technical feasibility of alignment on their own merits as 

independent projects. 

6.6.5 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of structures because 

the Project would not be constructed. Other passenger rail sections of the Chicago to Omaha 

corridor would be evaluated for technical feasibility of structures on their own merits as 

independent projects. 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-29 October 2012

6.6.6 Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for technical feasibility of grade crossings 

because the Project would not be constructed. Other passenger rail sections of the Chicago to 

Omaha corridor would be evaluated for technical feasibility of grade crossings on their own 

merits as independent projects. 

6.6.7 Economic Feasibility

The No-Build Alternative cannot be evaluated for economic feasibility because the Project 

would not be constructed. However, Under the No-Build Alternative, other passenger rail 

sections of the Chicago to Omaha corridor could be independently determined to be 

economically feasible. 

6.6.8 Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts

The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative, and not present major 

environmental challenges or impact sensitive areas. However, the current rail routes between 

Chicago and Omaha would continue to be used, resulting in continued minor environmental 

impacts such as air emissions, erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent 

waterbodies and wetlands, and noise. Other modes of transportation would continue to be 

used and would likely be more congested in the future as travel demand increases, resulting 

in potential impacts to sensitive areas.

6.6.9 Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way

The Project would not be constructed under the No-Build Alternative, and not require 

acquisition of ROW. However, other passenger rail sections of the Chicago to Omaha 

corridor could be developed and result in acquisition of ROW. Additionally, other travel 

modes could be more congested as travel demand increases, resulting in ROW acquisition for 

infrastructure improvements. 

6.7 SUMMARY

The fine-level screening of the five route alternatives and the No-Build Alternative based on 

ability to meet purpose and need, environmental concerns, and technical and economic 

feasibility is summarized below, followed by a comparison of route alternatives. 

6.7.1 Purpose and Need

The No-Build Alternative would not meet purpose and need, and would result in no ridership 

or revenue from tickets sold outside of what could occur under independent passenger rail 

initiatives. Table 6-6 shows the ridership and revenue from tickets sold forecast for the five 

route alternatives carried forward into fine-level screening under the three proposed 

maximum speed regimes. This table indicates that Route Alternatives 2 and 5 do not meet the 

purpose and need for attracting an adequate number of riders to make the service viable. 

Route Alternative 1 does not attract sufficient riders in Iowa to make it a viable service. 

While Route Alternative 1 would have substantial short-distance ridership from Rockford to 

Chicago, the fare recovered for the short trip would not be adequate to make the service 

viable. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-30 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Table 6-6. Stage 1 Forecast Results for Proposed Chicago-Omaha Passenger Rail Options

Annual Forecast 2020 Route 

Alternative 1

Route 

Alternative 2

Route 

Alternative 4

Route 

Alternative 5

Route 

Alternative 4-A 

Design Speed 79 mph, 5 Round Trips Daily

Ridership (thousands) 505-590 375–440 640–745 255–295 680–795

Revenue a

(millions 2012 $) $15.2-$17.7 $14.7–$17.1 $22.9–$26.7 $11.2–$13.0 $24.2–$28.3

Design Speed 90 mph, 5 Round Trips Daily

Ridership (thousands) 560–650 415–485 690–805 285–330 735–855

Revenue 

(millions 2012 $) $17.0–$19.9 $16.3–$19.1 $24.9–$29.1 $12.5–$14.5 $26.4–$30.8

Design Speed 110 mph, 5 Round Trips Daily

Ridership (thousands) 615–715 475–550 755–885 315–370 800–935

Revenue 

(millions 2012 $) $19.0–$22.2 $18.9–$22.0 $27.6–$32.2 $14.3–$16.6 $29.1–$33.9

Note: a Revenue forecast is for revenue from ticket sales only.

The ridership and revenue forecasts are influenced by populations served at intermediate 

cities (which creates ridership and revenue between pairs of intermediate cities, as well as 

between endpoint and intermediate cities), and by running times of trains on each route 

alternative. Preliminary running times are summarized in Table 6-7. These running times 

vary from 5.5 hours to nearly 8 hours, depending upon the characteristics of the route 

alternative (e.g., curvature and length), and the selected desired maximum speed of passenger 

trains. Among all five route alternatives, the time savings of higher speeds, end-to-end, were 

similar: approximately 30 minutes for 90 mph compared to 79 mph, and an additional 30 

minutes for 110 mph compared to 90 mph. 

Table 6-7. Comparative Running Times

Speed Regime Route 

Alternative 1

Route 

Alternative 2

Route 

Alternative 4

Route 

Alternative 5

Route 

Alternative 4-A 

79 MPH Base 79 + 43 

minutes Base 79 Base 79 + 17 minutes

Base 79 + 18 

minutes

Base 79 + 4 

minutes

90 MPH Base 90 + 43 

minutes Base 90 Base 90 + 22 minutes

Base 90 + 16 

minutes

Base 90 + 8 

minutes

110MPH Base 110 + 40

minutes Base 110 Base 110 + 25 minutes

Base 110 + 13 

minutes

Base 110 + 14 

minutes

Note: Running Times include station dwell times but do not include recovery time or potential allowances 

for delays at movable bridges over navigable waterways. Running Times are based on common conceptual 

parameters for infrastructure among all route alternatives. Running Times will require validation upon 

development of preliminary infrastructure, and will be subject to the terms and conditions of Service 

Outcome Agreements that would be agreed upon among host railroad(s) and service operator(s). 
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-31 October 2012

6.7.2 Technical Feasibility

The No-Build Alternative has no technical feasibility issues because no Project would be 

constructed; however, any independent passenger rail initiatives or improvements of other 

modes would be evaluated for technical feasibility on their own merits. The five route 

alternatives evaluated in the fine-level screening are similar in some respects. All cross 

similar geography between the end point cities and all are freight railroads with similar traffic 

types, but dissimilar traffic densities. However, the route alternatives have widely divergent 

technical feasibility. This divergence is driven by three factors:

• Length of route – greater length requires more infrastructure improvements for 

higher-speed passenger trains.

• Density of freight train traffic – greater density requires more challenging 

improvements to accommodate passenger trains, including impacts on bridges, 

grade crossings, and conflicts with industrial spurs 

• Access to Chicago Union Station – route alternatives without direct access require 

complex and challenging connections to be constructed in a dense urban core 

A brief summary of each route alternative’s technical feasibility is provided below.

Route Alternative 1 would likely require: 

• An additional main track for approximately two-thirds of its route 

• Substantial challenges to constructing this main track for approximately 50 miles 

in northwestern Illinois and northeastern Iowa, in narrow, winding river valleys 

• Potential construction of a tunnel near East Dubuque 

• Potential construction of a new high-level bridge over the Mississippi River

• Substantially longer length of route, requiring higher costs for capital, operation, 

and maintenance 

• Extensive earthwork to improve speeds in areas of heavy curvature 

Route Alternative 2 would likely require: 

• An additional third main track for nearly all of its length, an additional second 

main track for the remainder, and fourth main track for passenger/passenger 

meet/pass events

• Significant challenges to constructing this main track, for ROW, reconfiguration 

or relocation of industrial tracks or industries, grade crossings, and grade 

separations

• Likely construction of new high-level bridges across the Mississippi and Des 

Moines rivers 

Route Alternative 4 would likely require: 

• An additional main track for approximately two-thirds of its route 

• No substantial challenges to constructing this main track 

• Potential construction of a rail/rail grade separation structure at Des Moines

• No requirement for a new high-level bridge over the Mississippi River

• A complex and potentially disruptive connection within the Chicago core in order 

to bring the route to Chicago Union Station 

• Moderate earthwork to improve speeds in areas of moderate curvature
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-32 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Route Alternative 5 would likely require: 

• An additional third main track for nearly all of its length, an additional second 

main track for the remainder, and fourth main track for passenger/passenger 

meet/pass events

• Substantial challenges to constructing this main track, for ROW, reconfiguration 

or relocation of industrial tracks or industries, grade crossings, and grade 

separations

• Likely construction of new a high-level bridge across the Mississippi river

Route Alternative 4-A would likely require: 

• An additional second main track for approximately one-half of its route 

• An additional third main track for approximately one-tenth of its route 

• Moderate challenges to constructing these additional main tracks 

• Potential construction of a rail/rail grade separation structure at Des Moines

• Moderate earthwork to improve speeds in areas of moderate curvature

Route Alternative 4-A is the most technically feasible route because it has:

• The least challenging requirements for additional capacity

• Only one major structure of moderate complexity 

• Nearly the shortest length

• Direct access to Chicago Union Station 

• Nearly the least travel time

6.7.3 Economic Feasibility

The No-Build Alternative has no economic feasibility issues because no Project would be 

constructed; however, any independent passenger rail initiatives or improvements of other 

modes would be evaluated for economic feasibility on their own merits. The five route 

alternatives evaluated in the fine-level screening have widely divergent economic feasibility, 

driven by their technical feasibility and the resulting associated costs. Table 6-8 summarizes 

their economic feasibility by comparing their additive cost differences for implementation to 

Route Alternative 4 that had the lowest overall cost, and their additive forecast revenue 

differences.

Route Alternative 4 has the least relative implementation cost, and nearly the highest 

revenue, but does not access Chicago Union Station. Route Alternatives 4 and 4-A are the 

most economically feasible. 

Table 6-8. Implementation Cost and Forecasted Revenue ($ millions) of Route Alternatives

Route 

Alternative 1

Route 

Alternative 2

Route 

Alternative 4

Route 

Alternative 5

Route 

Alternative 4-A

Implementation 

Cost Base + $550 Base + $1,005 Base Base + $1,230.6

Base + 

$147.2

Forecasted 

Annual 

Revenue a

$15.2 to 

$22.2

$14.7 to 

$22.0

$22.9 to 

$32.2

$11.2 to 

$16.6

$24.2 to 

$33.9

Note: a Revenue forecast is for revenue from ticket sales only.
Chapter 6

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Fine-Level Screening

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 6-33 October 2012

6.7.4 Environmental Concerns

No Chicago to Omaha Passenger Rail System Project would be constructed under the NoBuild Alternative, and not result in construction impacts. However, the current rail routes 

between Chicago and Omaha would continue to be used, resulting in continued minor 

environmental impacts such as air emissions, erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades 

to adjacent waterbodies and wetlands, and noise. Other modes of transportation would 

continue to be used and would likely be more congested in the future as travel demand 

increases, resulting in potential impacts to sensitive areas. Other passenger rail sections of the 

Chicago to Omaha corridor could be developed and result in acquisition of ROW. 

Additionally, other travel modes could be more congested as travel demand increases, 

resulting in ROW acquisition for infrastructure improvements. 

The environmental resources discussed below represent solely the resources within the 

estimated existing ROW and an estimated buffer of additional ROW that may need to be 

acquired and provide a conservative estimate of what the potential impacts would be for each 

of the route alternatives. As the design process proceeds for the one or more route 

alternatives carried forward for detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS, a refined assessment of 

ROW needs would be established and potential impacts refined. Consequently, only 

environmental resources present in the estimated ROW and buffer can be identified during 

the fine-level screening process. There will be opportunities for impact avoidance and 

minimization through an interactive design and impact consideration process. 

In addition to the general environmental conditions discussed in this analysis, each route 

alternative would present various technical challenges, requiring construction that would 

result in adverse environmental impacts along each route alternative. All of the route 

alternatives would need additional track for most or all of the length of the corridor from 

Chicago to Omaha. 

Given all of the considerations discussed in Sections 6.1 to 6.5, Route Alternatives 2 and 5 

would require the most complex construction and would likely have the most environmental 

impacts related to construction. Route Alternative 1 would be somewhat less complex than 

Route Alternatives 2 and 5. Route Alternatives 4 and 4-A have the least complex 

construction requirements. 

The fine-level screening of several environmental resources indicates that Route Alternative 

4-A would likely result in the fewest overall environmental impacts based on the relatively 

low amount of resources present within the estimated ROW and buffer considering likely 

construction requirements and the environmental setting, followed by Route Alternatives 4, 

5, 2, and 1. Table 6-9 illustrates a comparison of the route alternatives 

Although Route Alternative 4-A could potentially impact slightly more Section 4(f) and 

Section 6(f) resources than other alternatives, the analysis was based on a buffer without 

conceptual engineering, allowing flexibility in design to avoid or minimize impacts on the 

resources. Because Illinois forest preserves, which are considered to be a Section 4(f) 

resource, exist on both sides of the railroad ROW for all route alternatives, the potential 

exists for all route alternatives to impact Section 4(f) properties. Considering potential 

impacts on all resources, Alternative 4-A is likely to have the least overall impact to 

environmental resources. 
Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-34 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Route Alternative 2 would potentially require the most acres of ROW, followed by Route 

Alternatives 5, 4-A, 1, and 4. Route Alternative 2 would require the most urban acres, 

followed by Route Alternatives 5, 4-A, 4, and 1. 

Table 6-9. Environmental Resources within ROW and Buffer for Route Alternatives

Criteria

Resources within ROW and Buffer

Route 

Alternative 1

Route 

Alternative 2

Route 

Alternative 4

Route 

Alternative 5

Route 

Alternative 4-A 

Named Stream 

Count 

42 

(67 crossings)

29 

(45 crossings)

41 

(52 crossings)

48 

(74 crossings)

39 

(44 crossings)

Stream Length (ft) 22,000 10,700 21,200 19,000 9,000

Floodplain Acres 

(Mississippi and 

Missouri Rivers 

only)

190 60 40 160 40

Wetland Count 260 320 280 340 220

Wetland Acres 190 250 190 2109 120

Farmland Acres 1,500 2,120 1,240 2,030 1,370

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Critical Habitat

4 Topeka 

shiner streams

4 Topeka 

shiner streams

1 Topeka 

shiner stream None 1 Topeka 

shiner stream

Cultural Resources 

(historic sites) 3 3 9 2 8 

Section 4(f)/6(f) 

Properties 29 31 27 25 36

Hazardous Materials 5 Superfund 

sites

4 Superfund 

sites

7 Superfund 

sites

3 Superfund 

sites

3 Superfund 

sites

Note: Data was estimated by counting resource items within a buffer applied to approximate ROW boundaries. 

Consequently, the data estimated represent preliminary, approximate values and was rounded for several 

resources with more than 100 counts per resource category.

Chapter 6

Fine-Level Screening Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 6-36 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Alternatives Carried Forward

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 7-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 7

REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE 

ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD 

This report evaluates and screens the range of route alternatives which could potentially be 

utilized to provide intercity passenger rail service between Chicago and Omaha in order to 

identify the reasonable and feasible route alternatives to be carried forward for detailed 

consideration in the Tier 1 EIS. As described in Chapter 3, a total of six route alternatives 

made up the universe of potential route alternatives which were evaluated and screened in 

this Alternatives Analysis. The six route alternatives include five previously established rail 

corridors (Route Alternative 1 through Route Alternative 5) and one combination (Route 

Alternative 4-A). The screening process (described in Chapter 4) for evaluating, and 

eventually selecting one or more route alternatives for carrying forward for detailed 

consideration, relied on the following four broad screening criteria: 

• Meeting the purpose and need for passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Omaha

• Environmental concerns 

• Technical feasibility

• Economic feasibility

The screening was conducted in two steps. The first step, described in Chapter 5, was a 

coarse-level screening to identify if any of the route alternatives had major flaws or 

challenges that render the particular route alternative infeasible. The second step, described 

in Chapter 6, was a fine-level screening, during which more detailed engineering and cost 

information, ridership and revenue information, and environmental information were 

developed and evaluated for each of the route alternatives carried forward from the coarselevel screening. 

7.1 RESULTS FROM THE COARSE-LEVEL SCREENING

The coarse-level screening concluded that one of the six route alternatives, Route Alternative 

3, was not reasonable or feasible. Route Alternative 3 is route alternative, where a substantial 

portion of the former rail line is abandoned, the tracks removed and the former rail ROW 

reclaimed and reused. Route Alternative 3 would require the redevelopment of approximately 

225 miles of abandoned railroad ROW with significant landowner, environmental and cost 

impacts. The remaining five route alternatives were carried forward for more detailed 

consideration in the fine-level screening.

7.2 RESULTS FROM THE FINE-LEVEL SCREENING

The fine-level screening concluded that of the remaining five alternatives carried forward 

from the coarse-level screening, four are not reasonable or feasible. Each of the route 

alternatives are discussed below. Table 7-1 provides a side-by-side comparison of each of the 

route alternatives. 
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Alternatives Carried Forward Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 7-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Alternatives Carried Forward

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 7-3 October 2012

Table 7-1. Route Alternative Comparison 

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 1 Route Alternative 2 Route Alternative 4 Route Alternative 5 Route Alternative 4-A No-Build Alternative 

Purpose and Need: 

Travel Demand

774,000 total 

population served

523,940 total 

population served

1,034,000 total 

population served

167,000 total 

population served

1,034,000 total 

population served No additional service

Ridership 

Forecast

505,000 to 

715,000

375,000 to 

550,000

640,000 to 

885,000

255,000 to 

370,000

680,000 to 

935,000 None

Revenue Forecast $15.2 to $22.2 

million

$14.7 to $22.0 

million

$22.9 to $32.2 

million

$11.2 to $16.6

million

$24.2 to $33.9

million None

Preliminary 

Running Time 

• Base 79 + 

43 minutes

• Base 90 + 

43 minutes

• Base 110 + 

40 minutes

• Base 79

• Base 90

• Base 110

• Base 79 + 

17 minutes

• Base 90 + 

22 minutes

• Base 110 + 

25 minutes

• Base 79 + 

18 minutes

• Base 90 + 

16 minutes

• Base 110 + 

13 minutes

• Base 79 + 

4 minutes

• Base 90 + 

8 minutes

• Base 110 + 

14 minutes

Not Applicable

Purpose and Need: 

Competitive and 

Attractive Travel 

Modes

• 516 miles long

• Excessive travel 

time 

• 479 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

• 490 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time

• Lack of connection 

to Chicago Union 

Station 

• 496 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

• 474 miles long

• Competitive travel 

time 

No new travel mode

Technical 

Feasibility:

Passenger and 

Freight Capacity 

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• Freight congestion 

Dubuque terminal

• Partial second main 

track

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• New third main 

track entire 

distance

• Freight congestion 

Des Moines 

terminal

• Partial second main 

track

• New Mississippi 

River Bridge

• New third main 

track entire 

distance

• Freight congestion 

Des Moines 

terminal

• Partial second and 

third main track

No change to existing 

capacity
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Alternatives Carried Forward Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 7-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Criteria

Relative Ranking of Route Alternative

Route Alternative 1 Route Alternative 2 Route Alternative 4 Route Alternative 5 Route Alternative 4-A No-Build Alternative 

Technical/ 

Economic 

Feasibility:

Alignment 

• Heavy curvature on 

approaches to 

Mississippi River 

valley

• Moderate curvature 

in Iowa

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements on 

approaches to 

Mississippi River 

valley 

• Light curvature

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements to add 

third main track

• Moderate curvature 

along Illinois River

• Moderate curvature 

between Des 

Moines and 

Atlantic

• Moderate 

earthwork 

requirements

• Light curvature

• Heavy earthwork 

requirements to add 

third main track

• Moderate curvature 

between Des 

Moines and 

Atlantic

• Moderate 

earthwork 

requirements

• No change to 

existing alignments

Technical/

Economic 

Feasibility:

Structures 

• New or improved 

East Dubuque 

Tunnel

• New Mississippi 

River bridge

• New Mississippi 

and Des Moines 

(Kate Shelly) 

bridges

• Grade separation 

with UP at Des 

Moines

• New Mississippi 

River bridge

• Grade separation 

with UP at Des 

Moines

• No changes to 

structures

Technical/

Economic 

Feasibility: Grade 

Crossings 

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

Substantial 

challenges at each 

grade crossing

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

Substantial 

challenges at each 

grade crossing

High number of grade 

crossings, but not 

technically 

complicated

No changes to grade 

crossings

Economic 

Feasibility: 

Base + 

$550 million

Base + 

$1,005 million Base Base + $1,230.6 million

Base + 

$147.2 million Not applicable

Environmental 

Concerns: 

Environmental 

Impacts

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified 

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

No unreasonable 

environmental 

resource issues 

identified

Environmental 

Concerns: Rightof-Way

2,200 acres needed 

(600 urban/1,600 

rural)

3,200 acres needed 

(950 urban/2,250 

rural)

2,100 acres needed 

(800 urban/1,300 

rural)

3,000 acres needed 

(850 urban/2,150 

rural)

2,200 acres needed 

(800 urban/1,400 

rural)

None

Meets Purpose and 

Need No No No No Yes No

Carried forward No No No No Yes Yesa

Note: a While the No-Build Alternative does not meet purpose and need, it is carried forward to provide a basis of comparison to any route alternative (40 CFR 

1502.14; 64 FR 28545).
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Alternatives Carried Forward

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 7-5 October 2012

7.2.1 Route Alternative 1

Route Alternative 1 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

attract the necessary ridership from Iowa communities and the Omaha/Council Bluffs 

metropolitan area to generate adequate revenue. In addition, because this route alternative is 

longest and slowest of the route alternatives, it would not offer a competitive travel time, and 

because of its length, Route Alternative 1 would have excessive operations and maintenance 

costs. Route Alternative 1 also did not meet the technical/economic criteria because it would 

require a major new structure over the Mississippi River and its costs were excessive

compared to the base case of preliminary cost estimates for improvement of Route 

Alternative 4, which had the least expensive costs. Route Alternative 1 was determined to be 

neither reasonable nor feasible.

7.2.2 Route Alternative 2

Despite the fact that it has the shortest travel time, Route Alternative 2 did not meet the 

purpose and need for the Project because it would not attract adequate ridership or generate 

the necessary revenue to make the service viable. Route Alternative 2 also did not meet the 

technical/economic criteria; it would require extensive new ROW and a major new structure 

over the Mississippi River. Route Alternative 2 did not meet the economic criterion because 

of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route Alternative 2 would cost approximately 

$1 billion more than the base case, without providing any additional service or ridership 

benefits. Route Alternative 2 was determined to be neither reasonable nor feasible.

7.2.3 Route Alternative 3

Route Alternative 3 was eliminated during the coarse-level screening.

7.2.4 Route Alternative 4

Route Alternative 4 does not meet the purpose and need for the project because the Chicago 

termini of Route Alternative 4 is at LaSalle Street Station instead of Chicago Union Station 

and provides substantially less modal interconnectivity at Chicago. It would not provide for 

the connection to the MWRRI high-speed network, which is connected through the Chicago 

hub at Chicago Union Station. This connection would be costly, have impacts on urban areas 

that the connection would be constructed through, and is not practical. 

Route Alternative 4 was the least costly (not accounting for a connection from La Salle Street 

Station to Chicago Union Station) and was considered to represent the base case for a 

comparison of preliminary costs of the different route alternatives, and it would attract 

adequate ridership and would generate adequate revenue. However, based on the lack of a 

connection from La Salle Street Station to Union Station, and the associated cost and impacts 

of constructing a connection, Route Alternative 4 was determined to be neither reasonable 

nor feasible. 
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Alternatives Carried Forward Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 7-6 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

7.2.5 Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 5 did not meet the purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

attract adequate ridership or generate the necessary revenue to make the service viable. Route 

Alternative 5 also did not meet the technical/economic criteria; it would require extensive 

new ROW and a major new structure over the Mississippi River. Route Alternative 5 did not 

meet the economic criterion because of the excessive capital cost requirements. Route 

Alternative 5 would cost approximately $1.2 billion more than the base case, without 

providing any additional service or ridership benefits. Route Alternative 5 was determined to 

be neither reasonable nor feasible.

7.2.6 Route Alternative 4-A 

Route Alternative 4-A fully meets the purpose and need for the Project. In consideration of 

meeting the purpose and need and other criteria, Route Alternative 4-A was determined to be 

reasonable and feasible. This route alternative is fully compatible with the route for Chicago 

to Iowa City service, which received a FRA service development grant award and is being 

actively pursued and developed by Illinois DOT. Route Alternative 4-A will be carried 

forward for evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS.

7.2.7 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative did not meet purpose and need for the Project because it would not 

provide any additional service or a new travel mode. There would be no change to existing 

capacity, alignment, structures, or grade crossings. However, to meet NEPA requirements for 

evaluating No Action and to serve as a baseline for comparing impacts of a route alternative, 

this alternative will be carried forward for evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS.

7.3 REASONABLE AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Route Alternative 4-A will be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS because, when 

compared to other route alternatives considered, it:

• Meets project purpose and need (purpose and need) 

• Has relatively low construction complexity and relatively low construction costs 

(technical and economic feasibility)

• Has grade-crossing complexity similar to all route alternatives (technical 

feasibility)

• Does not appear to require a new bridge over the Mississippi River (technical and 

economic feasibility)

• Is the shortest route alternative (purpose and need) 

• Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need) 

• Serves the largest population (purpose and need) 

• Has the highest ridership and farebox revenue forecast (purpose and need, and 

economic feasibility)

• Has direct access to Chicago Union Station (technical and economic feasibility)

• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)

The No-Build Alternative will also be carried forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS because 

evaluation of No Action is required by NEPA, and the alternative serves as a basis of 
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Alternatives Carried Forward

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 7-7 October 2012

comparison for likely impacts of constructing and operating the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Rail Passenger System along Route Alternative 4-A.

Route Alternative 4-A is fully compatible with the selected route for Chicago to Iowa City 

intercity passenger rail service, which received an FRA service development grant award and 

is being actively pursued and developed by Illinois DOT. The Tier 1 EIS will evaluate 

various implementation alternatives of Route Alternative 4-A to incorporate the decisions 

made on by FRA and Illinois DOT concerning infrastructure improvements on the Chicago 

to Iowa City corridor. The Tier 1 EIS will also evaluate the reasonable alignment options in 

the Des Moines, Iowa, vicinity to accommodate the freight traffic interference with the atgrade UP Railroad crossing while still providing the passenger service benefits. In addition, 

the Tier 1 EIS will evaluate the reasonable alternatives for connecting the new passenger rail 

service between Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska. 

The Tier 1 EIS will also evaluate the various service levels and station locations (Table 7-2). 

With respect to service levels, the Tier 1 EIS will evaluate three possible speed regimes 

(79 mph, 90 mph, and 110 mph) and several different reasonable service frequencies for the 

passenger rail service. In addition, reasonable alternatives for cities to be served will also be 

evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS. The Tier 1 EIS analysis will provide a basis for selecting the 

service level (operating speed, station stops, and frequency) that will best meet the purpose 

and need for the new passenger rail service.

Table 7-2. Implementation Alternatives to be Evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS

Alternative Type Parameter Variation

Service Level

Speed

• 79 mph

• 90 mph

• 110 mph

Frequency and Schedule

• 5 round trips /day

• Variable frequency (6-7 round trips per day)

• Intermediate station starts/stops

• Express service options

Stations and 

Communities Served

• Limited intermediate stops

• Expanded intermediate stops

Configuration

Des Moines

• At-grade crossing of UP 

• Grade separation of UP

• New alignment

Council Bluffs/Omaha

• Missouri River Crossing Options – Council 

Bluffs

• Missouri River Crossing Options - Blair
Chapter 7, Reasonable and Feasible

Alternatives Carried Forward Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 7-8 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 8

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Comments and Coordination

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 8-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 8

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

After completion of the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report, the findings were presented 

through online and in-person meetings. Comments were received from resource agencies, 

organizations, and the public, and responses were provided as appropriate. This chapter 

summarizes the Alternatives Analysis meetings, the comments received, and the associated 

responses. 

8.1.1 Alternatives Analysis Meetings

A set of three public information meetings was held in May 2012 to obtain input from the 

public on preliminary results from screening the initial range of route alternatives (see 

Figure 3-1). The Draft Alternatives Analysis Report was available for review on the Project 

website (http://chicagotoomaha.com/) the week of the meetings. 

The public information meetings were conducted both through in-person open-house 

meetings held in three locations and through an online, self-directed open-house meeting. 

In-person meetings were conducted on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, at Chicago Union Station in 

Chicago, Illinois; Wednesday, May 2, 2012, at the State Historical Society Building in Des 

Moines, Iowa; and Thursday, May 3, 2012, at the Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, 

Iowa. The in-person meetings were held from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. each evening. The online 

open house meeting was available from May 1 through May 21, 2012, on the Project website. 

The in-person and online open-house meetings were hosted by Iowa DOT, which illustrated 

the various route alternatives, explained the process used to evaluate the route alternatives, 

discussed results of the alternatives analysis, and helped Iowa DOT, FRA, and Illinois DOT 

gain public input on the route alternatives. Based on sign-in sheets for the in-person meetings 

and automatic electronic login recordation for the online meeting, there were 163 in-person 

attendees and 5,177 online attendees. 

In addition to the public information meetings, two Stakeholder Meetings were held with 

municipal representatives, elected officials, and community leaders. The Stakeholder 

Meetings were hosted by Iowa DOT from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2012, at 

the State Library in Des Moines, Iowa, and on Thursday, May 3, 2012, at the Mid-American 

Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Formal invitations were sent to municipal representatives, 

elected officials, and community leaders asking them to meet with the project team to discuss 

the same information that was presented at the in-person and online open-house meetings. 
Chapter 8

Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 8-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

8.1.2 Comments and Responses

During the comment period for the alternatives analysis, 208 comments were received from 

agencies, organizations, and the public. The majority of commenters noted that they would 

use the project and cited a variety of reasons, including personal or business travel. In 

addition,134 commenters noted their support for the Project, including a preference for Route 

Alternative 4 or Route Alternative 4-A, as well as potential economic benefits. Six comments 

were submitted by those who were not in support of the Project. Non-supportive comments 

cited the use of taxpayer money and the lack of a market for long-term use. 

Comments were received from the following ten agencies and organizations:

• City of Mount Vernon, Iowa

• City of Van Meter, Iowa

• Greater Des Moines Partnership

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources

• Iowa Association of Railroad Passengers

• Metra Commuter Rail

• Metropolitan Area Planning Agency 

• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

• ProRail Nebraska

• Sierra Club and River Action 

Agency and organization comments were focused on various topics, including the following: 

• Agency involvement in the project development process 

• Current train traffic

• Freight rail

• Permitting requirements

• Public meeting locations

• Route preference 

• Route selection process

In addition, 47 public commenters asked questions or brought up issues requiring individual 

responses. These comments focused on the following topics: 

• Bus service 

• Crime

• Current passenger rail service impact

• Denver, Colorado, service

• Document availability

• Economic impacts

• Highway improvements 

• Missouri River crossing 

• Project cost

• Project funding 

• Public meeting locations

• Public meeting and other participation options 

• Purpose and need
Chapter 8

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Comments and Coordination

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 8-3 October 2012

• Route selection

• Routes considered 

• Relationship to existing service and other proposed service 

• Station stops and facilities

• Train speed

• Vehicle diversions 

A complete list of these comments and the associated responses is provided in Attachment E. 
Chapter 8

Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 8-4 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 9

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study References

Final Alternatives Analysis Report 9-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 9

REFERENCES

40 CFR 1502.14. Alternatives including the proposed action. 

64 FR 28545. May 26, 1999. FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

48 FR 34263. Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations. 

Amtrak. November 7, 2011. California Zephyr, Chicago and San Francisco Bay Area. 

Berger, Buzz. March 1, 2012. Personal communication (email) from Buzz Berger, Civil 

Engineer, HDR Engineering, Inc. 

Colton. 1871. Colton’s Railroad & Commercial Map of the United States & Canada. New 

York: G.W. & C.B. Colton & Co. Available online at 

http://www.loc.gov/item/98688336. 

Conzen, Michael P. 2005. “Commuting.” Encyclopedia of Chicago. Chicago Historical 

Society. Retrieved on May 17, 2012. 

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/323.html. 

FHWA. November 2010. “Freight Facts and Figures 2010.” Retrieved on January 24, 2012. 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/10factsfi

gures/index.htm. 

FRA, Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT. September 2009. Chicago to Iowa City Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment.

Greyhound. 2011. Tickets. Retrieved July 2012. 

https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step1.aspx. 

Hudson, John C. 2005. “Railroads.” Encyclopedia of Chicago. Chicago Historical Society. 

Retrieved on May 17, 2012. 

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1039.html. 

Iowa DOT. December 27, 2010. Draft Iowa DOT 10 Year Strategic Passenger-Rail Plan. 

Iowa DOT. 2012. Draft Iowa In Motion – Planning Ahead 2040. Retrieved on January 24, 

2012. http://www.iowadot.gov/iowainmotion/state.html. 

Iowa DOT. January 24, 2012. Email message from Adam Shell, Iowa DOT, to Laura Hutzell 

and Amanda Martin, Iowa DOT, regarding I-80 Capacity Statistics for Chicago to 

Omaha Rail Study Purpose and Need Statement.

Knapp, Keith, Dennis Kroeger, and Karen Giese. February 2000. Mobility and Safety 

Impacts of Winter Storm Events in a Freeway Environment. Final Report. Retrieved 

on January 24, 2012. http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/43000/43200/43206/winstorm.pdf. 

Megabus.com. 2012. About Megabus. Retrieved July 2012. http://us.megabus.com/aboutus.aspx. 
Chapter 9

References Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 9-2 Final Alternatives Analysis Report

Merriam-Webster. 2012. Feasible – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster 

Dictionary. Retrieved on April 21, 2012. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/feasible

MWRRI. June 2004. Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook. Prepared by 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 

MWRRI. September 2004. Midwest Regional Rail System: A Transportation Network for the 

21st Century. Executive Report. Prepared by Transportation Economics & 

Management Systems, Inc.

MWRRI. November 2006. Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook - Chapter 11. 

Replacement for June 2004 version. Prepared by Transportation Economics & 

Management Systems, Inc.

MWRRI. 2011. Technical memoranda and technical reports for the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Phase 7. Prepared by Quandel Consultants, LLC. 

U.S. Census Bureau. March 27, 1995. “County Population Census Counts 1900-90.” 

Retrieved on December 5, 2011. 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/cencounts/index.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000, Summary File 1, Table P12: SEX BY AGE [49] - 

Universe: Total population. Generated by Kelly Farrell using American FactFinder. 

Retrieved on December 19, 2011. http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Census 2010, Summary File 1, Table P12: SEX BY AGE - 

Universe: Total population. Generated by Kelly Farrell using American FactFinder. 

Retrieved on December 19, 2011. http://factfinder2.census.gov/main.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. March 2010. “Table 7, Cumulative Estimates of Population Change for 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Rankings: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009.” 

Retrieved on December 5, 2011. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/tables/2009/CBSA-EST2009-07.xls. 

U.S. Census Bureau. August 17, 2011. “Population Estimates July 1, 2008.” 2010 Census 

Interactive Population Search. Retrieved on December 5, 2011. 

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php?fl=19. 

U.S. DOT. January 2012. Air Travel Consumer Report. Retrieved on January 24, 2012. 

http://airconsumer.dot.gov/reports/2012/January/2012JanuaryATCR.PDF. 

Young, David M. 2005. “Metra.” Encyclopedia of Chicago. Chicago Historical Society. 

Retrieved on May 17, 2012. 

http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/819.html. 
ATTACHMENT A 

FARE STRUCTURE 
Fare Structure 

Route Alternative 1 Chicago Elgin Rockford Dubuque Waterloo Fort Dodge 

Rockford 13.00 8.00 

Dubuque 25.00 20.00 14.00 

Waterloo 37.00 32.00 26.00 14.00 

Fort Dodge 49.00 44.00 38.00 26.00 15.00 

Council Bluffs 59.00 59.00 56.00 44.00 32.00 19.00 

Omaha 59.00 59.00 56.00 44.00 32.00 19.00 

Route Alternative 2 Chicago DeKalb Clinton 

Cedar 

Rapids Ames 

Clinton 20.00 13.00 

Cedar Rapids 31.00 23.00 13.00 

Ames 45.00 38.00 27.00 16.00 

Council Bluffs 59.00 59.00 48.00 37.00 23.00 

Omaha 59.00 59.00 48.00 37.00 23.00 

Route Alternative 4 Chicago Joliet Moline Iowa City Des Moines 

Moline 25.00 21.00 

Iowa City 33.00 28.00 10.00 

Des Moines 48.00 44.00 25.00 18.00 

Council Bluffs 59.00 59.00 43.00 36.00 20.00 

Omaha 59.00 59.00 43.00 36.00 20.00 

Route Alternative 5 Chicago Naperville Galesburg Burlington Osceola 

Galesburg 23.00 20.00 

Burlington 29.00 25.00 8.00 

Osceola 48.00 44.00 25.00 18.00 

Council Bluffs 59.00 59.00 43.00 36.00 20.00 

Omaha 59.00 59.00 43.00 36.00 20.00 

Route Alternative 4-A Chicago Naperville Moline Iowa City Des Moines 

Moline 25.00 21.00 

Iowa City 33.00 28.00 10.00 

Des Moines 48.00 44.00 25.00 18.00 

Council Bluffs 59.00 59.00 43.00 36.00 20.00 

Omaha 59.00 59.00 43.00 36.00 20.00 
ATTACHMENT B 

MODAL COMPARISON DOCUMENTATION
Modal Comparison Summary 

 
This page intentionally left blank.
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page 1 of 8 

Modal Comparison 

This appendix details the capabilities, costs, and capacities of alternate travel modes between 

Chicago, Omaha, and major intermediate cities on the five route alternatives in the Corridor. 

Alternate travel modes include personal auto, commercial airline service, and commercial 

intercity bus service. In addition, the availability of intermodal connectivity at Chicago, 

Omaha, and the major intermediate cities is characterized. 

Publically available information consulted included: 

 Commercial airline and bus service data, such as timetables, pricing information, 

and descriptions of service, extracted from airline and bus line websites 

 Databases from U.S. government sources such as the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics 

 Travel information websites published by Iowa and Illinois DOT, and the Illinois 

Tollway Authority 

 Travel costs for personal autos allowed by the Internal Revenue Service, plus 

applicable tollway charges and parking. 

 Distances for highway trips were assessed using Google Maps©. 

A common basis was established for an assumed typical traveler to provide direct crossmode comparisons between rail, personal auto, and commercial bus and airline services. The 

common basis is that the typical traveler is: 

 One person per party 

 Traveling for business reasons 

 Trip is round-trip between the downtown districts of Omaha and Chicago 

 Home terminal is Omaha 

 No opportunity for adjusting travel dates (relative to a trip for entertainment or 

personal reasons) to optimize travel cost, modal congestion peaks, or inclement 

weather 

 Little advance notice to optimize travel cost 

 Time used for trip has an opportunity cost (work or other use of time could occur) 

 Trip reliability (on-time performance, low risk of cancellation for any external 

cause) has high value 

 Trip is intended to be overnight, business conducted in Chicago either afternoon 

of first day, or morning of second day 

 Trip commences no earlier than 05:30 am, trip ends no later than 01:00 am 

following day (assuming not more than 1 hour travel time from home or place of 

business to location of air, bus, or rail service, and not more than 1 hour travel 

time from location of air, bus or rail service, to destination in Chicago). 

Alternate Travel Mode Findings – Commercial Bus and Airline Service 

Two commercial bus services offer service between Omaha and Chicago: Burlington 

Trailways and Megabus. Three airlines provide direct service between Omaha and Chicago: 

American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines. Commercial bus lines offer 

service to some but not all of the intermediate major urban areas on the various route 
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page 2 of 8 

alternatives, enabling travelers to travel directly between many of the city pairs that would be 

served by the various route alternatives. Nonstop airline service is also offered between 

Chicago and some of the intermediate major urban areas shown in Table B-1. Airline travel 

between Omaha and any of the intermediate cities on any of the route alternatives, or 

between any of the intermediate cities served by airlines, is indirect and requires at least two 

flights, with a connection in an airline hub city such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, or 

Houston. Megabus offers direct city-to-city service between Omaha, Des Moines, Iowa City, 

and Chicago only. Burlington Trailways offers direct city-to-city service between most of the 

cities shown in Table B-1. 

Table B-1. Commercial Air and Bus Service to Intermediate Cities Along the Route Alternatives 

Location Burlington 

Trailways Megabus American Airlines 

Southwest 

Airlines United Airlines 

Ames, Iowa X 

Aurora, Ill. 

Burlington, Ill. X 

Cedar Rapids, 

Iowa X X 

Clinton, Iowa 

Council Bluffs, 

Ill. X 

De Kalb, Ill. 

Des Moines, 

Iowa X X X X X 

Dubuque, Iowa X X 

Elgin, Ill. 

Fort Dodge, 

Iowa 

Galesburg, Ill. X 

Iowa City, Iowa X X 

Moline, Ill. X X X 

Joliet, Ill. X 

Osceola, Iowa X* 

Rockford, Ill. X 

Savanna, Ill. 

Waterloo, Iowa X X 

Note: 

* Burlington Trailways serves Knoxville and Ottumwa in lieu of Osceola. 

Alternate Travel Mode Service Summary 

Cost, travel time, frequency of service (for commercial modes), and business-travel 

compatibility of each of the alternative transportation modes are described below. The cost 

basis is summarized for travel between Omaha and Chicago in Table B-2 below: 
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page  of 8 

Table B-2. Summary of Alternate Travel Modes Between Omaha and Chicago 

Personal Auto Commercial Bus Service via Burlington Trailways Commercial Bus Service via Megabus C

One-way cost $280-$310 

Same day: $71 Omaha to 

Chicago and Chicago to Omaha 2-week advance notice: $40 Chicago to Omaha; $80 Omaha to Chicago 

Same day: $46.00, Omaha to Chicago and Chicago to Omaha 2-week advance notice: $41.00, Omaha to Chicago and Chicago to Omaha 

Sam2-w$36

Round-trip cost $550-$580 

Same day: $90 Omaha to 

Chicago, with parking in Omaha; $140 Chicago to Omaha, with parking in Chicago 2-week advance notice: $136 Omaha to Chicago, with parking in Omaha; $196 Chicago to Omaha, with parking in Chicago 

Same day: $82, Omaha to Chicago, with parking in Omaha; $148 Chicago to Omaha, with parking in Chicago 2-week advance notice: $77, Omaha to Chicago, with parking in Omaha; $143 Chicago to Omaha, with parking in Chicago 

Sam2-w$1,4

One-way travel time 8 hours, 15 minutes 

Omaha to Chicago: 8 hours, 30 minutes (8:15 pm - 4:45 am) Chicago to Omaha: 9 hours, 45 minutes (3:00 pm - 12:45 am) 

8 hours, 45 minutes 4 ho

Frequency of service Unlimited 2X daily 2X daily 

5X 6X 6X 

Ability to work en route None Moderate Moderate Low Capability to Conduct Business in Chicago during same day as travel 

No No No No 

All-weather travel reliability Low Unknown Unknown UnkOn-time performance Not applicable Unknown Unknown 

79% TolUSDthan pub

Basis of cost and time  470 miles one way via I-80  Megabus public fares  
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page of 8 

and I-88 and I-290 

 $0.555/mile from IRS 

Standard Mileage Rates, FY2012 

 Parking expense at 

bestparking.com 

o $5/day downtown 

Omaha (shown as it is an avoided cost for this mode) 

o $35/day Chicago Loop 

 Toll Road Cost $10.20 tolls 

(per Illinois Tollway) 

 Downtown parking $5/day 

in Omaha and $35/day in Chicago. Assume 2-day parking for business traveler. 

  
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page  of 8 

Alternate Travel Mode Effects on the Route Alternative Selection Process 

The alternate travel modes were examined to determine if any of the alternate travel modes made 

any of the rail route alternatives infeasible. This could take the form of the following: 

 The route alternative was slower than personal auto between Chicago and Omaha 

 The route alternative did not offer direct connectivity between intermediate cities 

 The route alternative was more costly 

 The route alternative did not offer travel amenities that made it as attractive as the 

alternate travel mode. 

These comparisons are made in the table below. These questions asked are designed to identify 

any feasibility differences among the route alternatives that are created by the characteristics of 

the alternate travel modes. Because the cost, travel time, frequency, and service amenities of the 

proposed rail passenger service are not fully defined at this time, it was assumed that the 

passenger rail service would have the following characteristics for purposes of Route Alternative 

comparison only: 

 1-Way Cost: $70-$170 

 Round Trip Cost: $130-$330 

 1-Way Travel Time: 7.5 to 9 hours (includes 1 hour travel time from home or place of 

business to downtown railroad station in Omaha, plus 7% recovery time added to 

train running time Omaha-Chicago) 

 Frequency of Service: 5X daily 

 Ability to Work En Route: Yes (e.g., WiFi, on-board food and beverages) 

 Capability to conduct business in Chicago during same day as travel: Yes 

 All-Weather Travel Reliability: High 

 On-Time Performance: 90% 

 Basis of cost and time: 

 Ticket price range based on current Amtrak Midwest and Northeast Corridor 

 Parking expense at bestparking.com 

o $5/day downtown Omaha (two full days) 

o None at Chicago 

 Travel times are assumed performance of trains from preliminary Train Performance 

Calculations. 

The table is color-coded to indicate whether a route alternative meets the Purpose and Need for 

providing a competitive and attractive travel alternative. Red indicates a route alternative does 

not meet the Purpose and Need. Yellow indicates a route alternative meets the Purpose and 

Need. Note that these comparisons are only among Route Alternatives, not between rail as a 

whole and the alternate travel mode. 

Table B-3: Characteristics of Alternate Travel Modes that Differentiate between Rail Route 

Alternatives 

Yellow = Route Alternative Meets Purpose and Need 
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page  of 8 

Red = Route Alternative Fails to Meet Purpose and Need 

Comparison Question 

Route Alternative 

1 2 4 5 4-A 

Personal Auto Mode 

Does rail offer the same or better city-to-city 

connectivity for each of the cities that would be 

served by the Route Alternative?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Would rail service be the same cost or less 

expensive for a single traveler?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail service likely to provide faster travel times 

between Chicago and Omaha at 79 mph?

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

 At 90 mph? No Yes Yes Yes Yes

 At 110 mph? Possibly Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer competitive or better frequency to 

enable trips to be made throughout the day?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer the same or better service 

amenities that increase business productivity en 

route?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer ability for same-day work in 

Chicago?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail more likely to have greater travel 

reliability, such as in inclement weather?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail likely to have greater on-time 

performance?

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Commercial Bus Service Mode 

Does rail offer the same or better city-to-city 

connectivity for each of the cities that would be 

served by the Route Alternative?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Would rail service be the same cost or less 

expensive for a single traveler?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail service likely to provide faster travel times 

between Chicago and Omaha at 79 mph?

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

 At 90 mph? No Yes Yes Yes Yes

 At 110 mph? Possibly Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer competitive or better frequency to 

enable trips to be made throughout the day?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer the same or better service 

amenities that increase business productivity en 

route?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer ability for same-day work in 

Chicago?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail more likely to have greater travel 

reliability, such as in inclement weather?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail likely to have greater on-time 

performance?

No data No data No data No data No data

Commercial Airline Mode 

Does rail offer the same or better city-to-city Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page of 8 

connectivity for each of the cities that would be 

served by the Route Alternative?

Would rail service be the same cost or less 

expensive for a single traveler?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail service likely to provide faster travel times 

between Chicago and Omaha at 79 mph?

No No No No No

 At 90 mph? No No No No No

 At 110 mph? No No No No No

Does rail offer competitive or better frequency to 

enable trips to be made throughout the day?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer the same or better service 

amenities that increase business productivity en 

route?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Does rail offer ability for same-day work in 

Chicago?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail more likely to have greater travel 

reliability, such as in inclement weather?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Is rail likely to have greater on-time 

performance?

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Summary 

Route Alternative 1 does not meet the Purpose and Need that the rail service must provide travel 

times faster than personal auto for travel between Chicago and Omaha. 

There are no other alternate transportation mode characteristics that by their existence create 

substantial differences among the route alternatives that would lead to the rejection of a route 

alternative. 

Transportation Interconnectivity Characteristics of Route Alternatives 

This section compares the rail route alternatives for their availability of modal interconnectivity 

at intermediate stations. Chicago and Omaha are common to all route alternatives; however, 

Route Alternative 4 does not serve Chicago Union Station and thus has less modal 

interconnectivity than Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5. Omaha has an extensive bus transit 

system that is focused on the downtown area, the likely terminus of the Chicago-Omaha rail 

passenger system. Chicago has a highly developed and extensive bus, commuter rail, and rail 

rapid transit system also focused on the downtown area, where the Chicago-Omaha service is 

likely to terminate. 

Table B-4: Modal Interconnectivity of Route Alternatives 

Route 

Alternative

Metro Area Service Type

Fixed Route Bus Paratransit/ Demand Response Bus

1 

Fort Dodge X X 

Waterloo X X 

Dubuque X X 

 Rockford X X 

 Elgin X X 

2 

 Ames X X 

 Cedar Rapids X X 
Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Modal Comparison Appendix 

Page  of 8 

 Clinton X X 

 DeKalb X X 

4 

 Des Moines X X 

 Iowa City X X 

 Quad Cities X X 

 Joliet X X 

5 

 Osceola 

 Burlington X 

 Galesburg X X 

 4-A 

 Des Moines X X 

 Iowa City X X 

 Quad Cities X X 

 Naperville X X 

Summary 

Route Alternative 4-A does not meet the Purpose and Need that the rail service must provide 

travel times faster than personal auto for travel between Chicago and Omaha. Route Alternative 

5 is the only route without fixed-route bus service at some of its intermediate cities. Route 

Alternative 4 does not provide similar modal connectivity at Chicago as Route Alternatives 1, 2, 

4-A, and 5. 
modal comparison_CMS_FOR APPENDIX.xlsx

Summary

4/6/2012

Mode Option Speed (mph) Reliability Travel Time (One‐Way) User Cost User Cost Range

Automobile Personal Auto 8 hours, 15 minutes

Bus Omaha to Chicago, 2 Week Notice (1‐Way) $             80.00

Chicago to Omaha, 2 Week Notice (1‐Way) $             40.00

Omaha to Chicago, Same Day (1‐Way) $             71.00

Chicago to Omaha, Same Day (1‐Way) $             71.00

Omaha to Chicago, 2 Week Notice (Round Trip) $             80.00

Chicago to Omaha, 2 Week Notice (Round Trip) $             80.00

Omaha to Chicago, Same Day (Round Trip) $           126.00

Chicago to Omaha, Same Day (Round Trip) $           126.00

Omaha to Chicago, 2 Week Notice (1‐Way) $             41.00

Chicago to Omaha, 2 Week Notice (1‐Way) $             41.00

Omaha to Chicago, Same Day (1‐Way) $             46.00

Chicago to Omaha, Same Day (1‐Way) $             46.00

Omaha to Chicago, 2 Week Notice (Round Trip) $             67.00

Chicago to Omaha, 2 Week Notice (Round Trip) $             73.00

Omaha to Chicago, Same Day (Round Trip) $             72.00

Chicago to Omaha, Same Day (Round Trip) $             78.00

Downtown Parking

Per Day 5.00 $               

in Omaha

downtown

Per Day 35.00 $             

in Chicago

downtown

Air Flight 2‐week advanced notice (1‐Way) 79% $           150.00 $100‐ $300

"Walk‐Up" (1‐Way) 79% $           220.00 $220‐$700

2‐week advanced notice (Round Trip) $210‐$1400

"Walk‐Up" (Round Trip) $440‐$1400

Airport Parking

Per Day 30.00 $              average

Amtrak Rail Omaha to Chicago, 2 Week Notice (1‐Way) $           108.00

Chicago to Omaha, 2 Week Notice (1‐Way) $             69.00

Omaha to Chicago, Same Day (1‐Way) $             69.00

Chicago to Omaha Next Day, (Same Day (1‐Way) $             86.00

Passenger Rail Speed (mph) Reliability Travel Time (One‐Way)

Route

Alternative 1 (CN via Dubuque)

79 90% 8 Hours 4 Minutes

110 90% 6 Hours 42 Minutes

Route

Alternative 2 (UP via Clinton)

79 90% 7 Hours 18 Minutes

110 90% 5 Hours 60 Minutes

Route

Alternative 4 (IAIS via Moline)

79 90% 7 Hours 36 Minutes

110 90% 6 Hours 26 Minutes

Route  

Alternative

4‐A

(BNSF‐IAIS via Wyanet and Moline)

79 90% 7 Hours 22 Minutes

110 90% 6 Hours 15 Minutes

Rout  

Alternative 5 (BNSF via Burlington)

79 90% 7 Hours 37 Minutes

110 90% 6 Hours 13 Minutes

9 Hours, 30 Min

9 Hours

9 Hours, 30 Min

9 Hours

1 Hour, 20 Min‐ 1 Hour, 50 Min (Direct

1 Hour, 20 Min‐ 1 Hour, 50 Min (Direct

MegaBus

MegaBus

Burlington

Trailways

8 Hours, 30 Min

9 Hours, 45 Min

8 Hours, 30 Min

9 Hours, 45 Min

8 Hours, 45 Min

8 Hours, 45 Min

8 Hours, 45 Min

8 Hours, 45 Min

Burlington

Trailways
This page intentionally left blank.
modal comparison_CMS_FOR APPENDIX.xlsx

Air Info

4/6/2012 Airline Reliability

Date Range: Feb 2011 to Feb 2012

Definitions by Code of Federal Regularions, CFR‐ Title 14 (Aeronaturics and Space) Volume 4 Section 234.

Definition of late flight: Late or late flight means a flight that

arrives at the gate 15 minutes or more

after its published arrival time.

Definition of cancelled flight: Cancelled flight means a flight operation

that was not operated, but was

listed in a carrier’s computer reservation

system within seven calendar days  of the scheduled departure

1

Orig= Omaha

Dest = Ohare

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?collectionCode=CFR&searchPath=Title+14%2FC

hapter+II%2FSubchapter+A%2FPart+234&granuleId=&packageId=CFR‐2002‐title14‐

vol1&oldPath=Title+14%2FChapter+II%2FSubchapter+A&fromPageDetails=true&collapse=true&ycord

=1070

3129 Total Number of Flights (All Carriers)

114 Total Number Cancelled

591 Total Number Late

2424 Total "Reliable" (not late or cancelled)

77% Reliability

2

Orig= Ohare

Dest = Omaha

3013 Total Number of Flights (All Carriers)

104 Total Number Cancelled

673 Total Number Late

2236 Total "Reliable" (not late or cancelled)

74% Reliability

3

Orig= Midway

Dest = Omaha

1900 Total Number of Fli h (All Flights (All Carriers) C

20 Total Number Cancelled

363 Total Number Late

1517 Total "Reliable" (not late or cancelled)

80% Reliability

4

Orig= Omaha

Dest = Midway

1879 Total Number of Flights (All Carriers)

20 Total Number Cancelled

247 Total Number Late

1612 Total "Reliable" (not late or cancelled)

86% Reliability

WEIGHTED AVERAGE ON RELIABILITY

79%

Airline Trip Travel Time Airline Trip Travel Time

Min Description

10 Drive time Downtown Omaha to Eppley Airport (Personal Auto)

10 Parking personal auto, shuttle bus to terminal

60 Advance Arrival Time Before Departure (assume check‐in, security)

110 Flight Time (assumed maximum of 1 hour 50 min vs 1 hour 20 min)

30 collect carry‐on luggage and exit airport

60 CTA from O’Hare to Loop

280 Min

Total Travel Time 4 Hours 40

Airport Parking

     24.00$ per day Omaha Eppley

     33.00$ per day Chicago Ohare

     31.00$ per day Chicago Midway

     30.00$ AVERAGE
modal comparison_CMS_FOR APPENDIX.xlsx

Auto Info

4/6/2012

Personal Auto

TRAVEL COST

Travel Distance 470 mi One Way travel distance via I‐80 and I‐88

Source:

Google

Maps

Cost Per Mile $             0.555 Use the IRS Standard Rate Since Span Multiple States

$               0.37 $/mi Cost per mile used in Chi‐IC?

$             0.555 $/mi Cost per mile‐ IRS FY2012 Business Rate

Parking Expense

$             35.00 $/day Daily Cost of parking  in Chicago Loop

$               5.00 $/day Daily Cost of parking  in Omaha downtown core

Illinois Tolls $             10.20 One‐Way tolls

Dixon Tolls Plaza 69            3.60$

DeKalb Toll Plaza 66            3.60$

Aurora Toll Plaza 61            1.50$

Meyers Road Toll Plaza 52            1.50$

Personal Auto One‐Way Trip, Assuming 1‐Day Parking in Chicago

$           306.05

Personal Auto One‐Way Trip, Assuming 1‐Day Parking in Omaha

$           276.05

Source: Benefit‐Cost Analysis Specific to the State of

Iowa (January 2011)‐ p. 216, Table 2

Source: IRS Standard Mileage  Rates, FY2012

Source: bestparking.com, as of 3/21/12

Source: bestparking.com, as of 3/21/12

Source: illinoisvirtualtollway.com.  Vehicle type =

auto/motorcycle (2axles)

Personal Auto Round Trip, Assuming 1‐Day Parking in Chicago

$           577.10

Personal Auto Round Trip, Assuming 1‐Day Parking in Omaha

$           547.10

TRAVEL TIME

Segment Endpoints Dist (mi) TT (min) Implied Spd

I‐80 Omaha to DeSoto (Highway 169) 117 112 62.7

I‐80 DeSoto (Hwy 169)to Altoona (Hwy 6 32 32 60.0

I‐80/ I‐88 Altoona (Hwy 65) to Dixon Plaza 223 218 61.4

I‐88 Dixon Plaza to DeKalb Plaza 30.3 36 50.5

I‐88 DeKalb Plaza to Aurora Plaza 31.2 44 42.5

I‐88 Aurora Plaza to Oakbrook 17.2 22 46.9

I‐290 I‐88 (Wolf) to I‐90/I‐94/Circle 14 35 24.0

Total Distance 464.7

Total Travel Time (Min) 499

Total Travel Time (Hours) 8 Hours 19 Minutes

Source: travelmidweststats.com

Source: travelmidweststats.com

Source: travelmidweststats.com

Source: travelmidweststats.com

Note: Travel time is the maximum daily

segment travel time (based on EB for

Wednesdays)‐ since taking max daily then

assume opposite direction is equivalent

Source: Google Maps, reported distances and travel times

Source: Google Maps, reported distances and travel times

Assumptions Not Used

Price of Gasoline $                3.80 Source: AAA, Regular per gallon average for Iowa as of March 19, 2012

Fuel Economy 27 mpg, Assumed Average for Personal Vehicles
Modal Providers 

   
This page intentionally left blank.
Route

Alternative

Metro

Area

Agency Type Agency Name Service Type

1

Fort

Dodge

Small City of Fort Dodge (DART) Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Subscription

Fort

Dodge

Regional MIDAS Council of Governments Demand Response,

Subscription

Waterloo Large Metropolitan Transit Authority of Black

Hawk County/Waterloo MET

Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Subscription

Waterloo Regional Iowa Northland Regional Council of

Governments/Regional Transit Commission

Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Dubuque Large City of Dubuque, The Jule Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Subscription

Dubuque Regional Delaware, Dubuque and Jackson County

Regional Transit Authority.   

Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Rockford Large Rockford Mass Transit District Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Elgin Large Metra Commuter Rail

Elgin Large PACE Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Vanpool

Elgin Large Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Rapid Transit

2

Ames Large Ames Transit Agency/ CyRide Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Subscription

Cedar

Rapids

Large Cedar Rapids Transit Fixed Route, ADA

paratransit service

Cedar

Rapids

Regional East Central Iowa Council of Governments Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Clinton Small City of Clinton Municipal Transit

Administration

Fixed Route, Paratransit

DeKalb Regional City of DeKalb (DSATS) Fixed Route, Paratransit

4

Des

Moines

Regional Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Des

Moines

Large Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority

(DART)

Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Vanpool

Iowa City Large Coralville Transit System Fixed Route, Paratransit

Iowa City Large University of Iowa, Cambus Fixed Route, Paratransit

Iowa City Large Iowa City Transit Fixed Route, Paratransit

Quad

Cities

Regional River Bend Transit Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Quad

Cities

Large Davenport Public Transit (Citibus) Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Subscription

Quad

Cities

Large Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass

Transit

Fixed Route, ADA

paratransit service,

subscription

Quad

Cities

Large City of Bettendorf Fixed Route, Paratransit

Joliet Large Metra Commuter Rail

Joliet Large PACE Fixed Route, Paratransit,
Vanpool

Joliet Large Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Rapid Transit

4‐A

Des

Moines

Regional Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Des

Moines

Large Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority

(DART)

Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Vanpool

Iowa City Large Coralville Transit System Fixed Route, Paratransit

Iowa City Large University of Iowa, Cambus Fixed Route, Paratransit

Iowa City Large Iowa City Transit Fixed Route, Paratransit

Quad

Cities

Regional River Bend Transit Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Quad

Cities

Large Davenport Public Transit (Citibus) Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Subscription

Quad

Cities

Large Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass

Transit

Fixed Route, ADA

paratransit service,

subscription

Quad

Cities

Large City of Bettendorf Fixed Route, Paratransit

Naperville Large Metra Commuter Rail

Naperville Large PACE Fixed Route, Paratransit,

Vanpool

Naperville Large Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Rapid Transit

5

Osceola N/A   

Burlington Regional South East Iowa Regional Planning

Commission/ SEIBUS

Demand‐Response,

Subscription

Burlington Small Burlington Urban Service Demand‐Response,

Route deviation,

subscription

Galesburg Small Galesburg Transit Fixed Route, Handivan

   
Available Transit Maps for 

Iowa and Chicago and Omaha Metropolitan Areas 

   
This page intentionally left blank.
Iowa’s Public Transit System 

http://www.iowadot.gov/transit/interactive_map.html

 
Chicago Regional Transportation Authority 

http://www.transitchicago.com/asset.aspx?AssetId=177

   

- i - .... 

;s;.~ · 

::. ~--

- =.:.·- - s.-:;:: ... .:- ~--­

-=..::..- :.:~~ 

;n.~ · 

iii m::~ --

.o-- ., ~ .... -- -

oO.:::-.......::":.:,:..-= ·=-== --

-

___ _. .. .,_ . ,.,.. .. __ ·

TV··Tt=."3::·· ---

me ---

' 
Metra (Chicago) 

http://metrarail.com/content/metra/en/home/maps_schedules/metra_system_map.html

   
Pace (Chicago Regional Transportation Authority) 

http://www.pacebus.com/default.asp

   

lAIO! 

COOK 

OU rAGB 
Omaha Metro 

http://ometro.com/bus‐system‐page/system‐map

Bus System - System Map - Ou.aha Metro 

[jjJ metro I Bus System Rider GUide Announcements Corporate Contact 

Home > Bus System > System Map 

a 

a 

Rider Alert: MOBY SERVICE Espai\ol 

._I s_e_a_rc_h_o_m_et_ro_.co__m ____ ....JI Q 

MAP UEGEND · Routes ~· hw-­

-

_ ·.. _ ,. ,, - : - " - J - 1-1 

- ·· .. ~ 

=-- · · --

" : = ; 

=:.. ~ ~ ~ 

-.... -· --.._,.,yAM ....... ~~ 

il~Pt'.UftMH _ , _ , __ ,. 

.. _ .. 

~ 
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT C 

TRAIN OVERTAKE DISTANCE CALCULATIONS 
DATE

FIGURE

April 2012

Train Overtake Distance Calculations

&KLFDJRWR2PDKD

5HJLRQDO3DVVHQJHU5DLO6\VWHP3ODQQLQJ6WXG\

50

40

30

Distance (s) (Miles)

20

10

.25 .50 .75 1.0

Time (t) (Hours)

0.267 0.533

21 miles

43 miles

Passenger Train is

8 miles ahead of

Freight Train

Passenger Train Position (Distance): 

Freight Train Position (Distance):

s1 = 80t

s2 = 50t + 8

Location where Passenger Train is even with the Freight Train (“neck-and-neck”):

s1 = s2 80t = 50t + 8 30t = 8 t = 0.267 hrs

 80 (0.267) = 21 miles = s1 = s2

Location where Passenger Train is 8 miles ahead of the Freight Train:

s1 = s2 80t - (50t + 8) = 8 30t = 16 t = 0.533 hrs

 80 (0.533) = 43 miles = s1

 50 (0.533) + 8 = 35 miles = s2

ds1

dt

= 80mph

ds2

dt

= 50mph
ATTACHMENT D 

COST INDEX RANKING
CHICAGO‐OMAHA HSR COST ESTIMATES

UNIT COSTS

Item U/M Unit Cost

Universal Crossover, 2 tracks, every 8 miles Route Mile $               80,000

Universal Crossover, 3 tracks, every 8 miles Route Mile 118,000 $            

Industry Spur Connection EA $             225,000

CTC+PTC Route Mile 250,000 $            

Grade Xing (Roadway) Lanes $               50,000

Grade Xing (Track) Tracks $             200,000

Bridge, PCCB TF $                 6,000

Bridge, Steel TF $               12,000

Hwy Grade Sep, RR over TF $               15,000

Hwy Grade Sep, RR under Lane‐Foot $                 3,100

Major Structure Cost EA $     250,000,000

Track at 15' CLs Light Earthwork TM $         2,321,800

Track at 15' CLs Heavy Earthwork TM $         4,037,800

Track at 20' CLs Light Earthwork TM $         2,242,600

Track at 20' CLs Heavy Earthwork TM $         4,618,600

Track at 45' CLs Light Earthwork TM $         2,902,600

Track at 45' CLs Heavy Earthwork TM $         7,390,600

East Dubuque Tunnel TF $               30,000

ROW: Urban

Urban ROW Area, Unit Cost, Ext. Cost AC $             100,000

ROW: Rural

Rural ROW Area, Unit Cost, Ext. Cost AC $               25,000

Station Cost EA $         6,000,000

Major Station Cost EA $       15,000,000
ATTACHMENT E

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Agency Comments and Responses

Page 1 of 14

4/18/12 Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources 

Agency Coordination Did you folks get my email sent several weeks ago?? It pertains to the coordination for natural 

resources review on the alignments for this project. I assume you did. Call me if u need more 

direction. Please respond so I know and there is not a last minute deadline to meet.

Illinois DNR was contacted to request the database information for route alternative review. 

4/25/12 Greater Des Moines 

Partnership 

Public Involvement Please clarify the location - is it at the Des Moines Public Library - Main library downtown or Grand 

(not E Grand) or is it at one of the buildings surrounding the Capitol complex? Also, the meeting 

previously scheduled at the State Historical Building later in the has been cancelled, correct?

Thank you for your interest in the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. The Stakeholder meeting you reference will be held at the Main Library, 1112 E. Grand 

Ave (directly to the north of the Capitol building), from 1-3pm. We are sending out a reminder 

on Monday; I will make sure to include these specifics in the invite. In addition, the public 

meeting will take place later that evening, from 4-7pm, at the State Historical Society of Iowa 

Building, 600 E. Locust St. Can you tell me where you heard that the meeting was cancelled so 

we can fix the communication error if necessary? Thank you very much! We hope to see you 

next week. 

4/29/12 City of Mount Vernon Routes - Alternative Route; Use 

of the Project; Routes - Route 2; 

Routes - Route 4

The ideal route would connect Omaha to Des Moines, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, then 

through the northern suburbs of Chicago to Downtown. That would be the blue route connecting to 

the red route at Cedar Rapids. The Crandic line could be used for the Iowa City to Cedar Rapids 

connection. That section betwen CR and IC alone might be a very popular trip for commuters. U of I 

students would provide a lot of traffic to the northern suburbs of Chicago.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input 

and contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 

18 months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis 

through May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/1/12 Sierra Club and River 

Action 

Routes - Location Specific - IA 

City; Routes - Location Specific 

Comment

It was on the news that the route has already selected through QC and Iowa City. Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input 

and contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 

18 months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis 

through May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/1/12 Iowa Assc. of Railroad 

Passengers also - Pro 

Rail Nebraska

General I am having "major problems" with Council Bluffs Nonpareil & Omaha World Harold printing 

informatino in advance on these meetings. I have submitted information to them in person but they 

ignore the information. The Council Bluffs Chamber of Commerce has negated them publishing 

these notices in our newspapers & other news media too. This holds true when Governor Vilisak 

came in to Council Bluffs by train. The news media had information 1-1/2 weeks ahead of time but 

would not print these news story's till the Chamber of Commerce said okay. Later Roland M. Lynch, 

5-1-2012

Concerns were discussed in person with Amanda Martin at the Council Bluffs Stakeholder 

Meeting on May 3, 2012.

5/2/12 City of Van Meter Routes - Route 4A; General; 

Routes - Location Specific 

Comment

Your google map does not work correctly and does not allow me to zoom in as much as needed. Is 

your route 4A running throught the city of Van Meter, IA? If so, have you made the city aware of 

this? If so, please explain to me how this could possibly be a good thing for our city as the railroad 

in Van Meter runs across the only entrance from the interstate that provides access to residential 

properties. Also all of our city's business as well as the Rec Complex flanks the railroad running 

through town. Please respond to these questions as soon as possible. Thank you, Adam Coyle.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. This 

route does run through Van Meter on the Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS). The study will 

determine the feasibility of service from Chicago to Omaha that will be available to all of the 

citizens of Iowa, so as to assist in providing an alternative mode of transportation and help 

alleviate congestion on the highways and at airports. As part of the necessary improvements 

for implementing passenger rail from Chicago to Omaha, gates and flashing lights will be 

required at every public crossing along the entire route, including crossings that now only have 

lights and/or passive signage. If the speeds are ultimately higher than 79 mph, there will be a 

requirement to install additional safety mechanisms at the crossings. 

Comment Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Agency Topic(s)
Agency Comments and Responses

Page 2 of 14

Comment Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Agency Topic(s)

5/2/12 Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources 

Agency Coordination; General I have submitted comments twice that some one contact me on this project. At this time there has 

been no response. I manage the Transportation Review Program and do the environmental reviews 

on transportation projects. I have been involdved in the the HSR from Chicago to st. Louis. I see 

where u souposedly got comments from the resource agencies in early 2012 but to my knowlege I 

have not been contacted other than these emails u send out. out of courtesy, I would appreciate 

someone contact me to see how the IL. Dept. of Natural Resources is involved.

Response given via telephone conversation summarized here. 

Called Illinois DNR and apologized for the delay in getting back to them regarding specific 

future use of Illinois DNR data. Illinois DNR questions were based on the availability of the 

Alternatives Analysis Report and wanting to know more about the screening and subsequent 

environmental processes. 

It was explained that the screening process relied primarily on publicly available datasets 

equivalent for routes reviewed for IL, IA, and NE. It was also noted that the intent of the 

environmental screening process was to identify fatal flaws and that purpose and need, 

engineering, and cost considerations were the main drivers for screening out alternatives. For 

T&E species, the focus was on critical habitat for federal species. Although there are county 

lists of T&E species both at federal and state level, without knowing specific habitat along the 

route, a reasonable determination of potential impacts by species could not be made without 

an extensive effort, and a count by counties of total T&E species along a route would not lead 

to a reasonable comparison. This is Tier 1 and the EIS would look more along Route 

Alternative 4-A, and the Illinois DNR information on T&E species would be useful for the Tier 1 

EIS and even more so during Tier 2. Tier 1 analysis will result some ideas on what would be 

needed for track and facilities, but not exact locations or dimensions. Route Alternative 4-A 

follows the route of a portion of the Chicago to Iowa City (Tier 1) and subsequently Chicago to 

Moline (Tier 2) routes, which were previously evaluated for environmental issues, including 

T&E species. Environmental information has been requested from Illinois DOT on the Chicago 

to Moline effort.

Illinois DNR mentioned there is an ongoing issue with Chicago to St. Louis on the need for an 

incidental take that needs several months of coordination, and they didn’t want that to be 

needed for this project. The Chicago to Omaha project is still early in the process and the plan 

would be to continue coordination through Tier 1 and into Tier 2, as warranted. An e-mail to 

Illinois DNR from the Project team requesting access to Illinois DNR data would start the 

approval process and the agreement would specify to protect the data and not provide specific 

locations of T&E species to the public. The e-mail could also note introduction to the EcoCAT 

process that would be forwarded to Tara Kieninger whereby Illinois DNR helps review a 

id ( ) f i l i f 5/3/12 Metropolitan Area 

Planning Agency 

Routes - Route 4A; Rail - 

Operations

Agree with selection of 4-A as preferred alternative. I would recommend analysis of ridership if 

budgetary and political situation only allow 1-2 trips per day as part of study.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. 

Ridership and revenue forecasts for various frequencies and speeds are being developed as 

part of the study and are considered by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as key 

factors in determining the preferred alternative. At the end of the study, we will have a better 

understanding of the most feasible implementation plan for the service.
Agency Comments and Responses

Page 3 of 14

Comment Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Agency Topic(s)

5/17/12 Nebraska Department 

of Environmental 

Quality 

Water Quality; Agency 

Coordination; General

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) has reviewed the above-mentioned project. As 

with any facility, permits may be required prior to beginning construction or operation. At a minimum, you 

should be aware of the possible requirements for the following permits: 

* A Construction Storm Water Permit will be required if there is greater than one acre of disturbance of land, 

which is likely with this project. Highly chlorinated water for main disinfection will require de-chlorination prior 

to discharge. Please contact Blayne Renner at the number provided below if you have additional questions 

regarding the NDEQ Construction Storm Water Permit. 

* Wastes generated from construction and/or demolition during this project must be properly disposed at a 

permitted landfill or recycled. If you have questions related to the Waste Program, please contact Jeff Edwards 

at the number provided below. 

* Check with USACE for Section 404 needs. 

* Depending on the final route and location in Douglas County as well as installation of stationary equipment 

NDEQ Title 129 (outside of city limits) and/or Omaha Air Quality Control regulations (inside of city limits) would 

apply to the following: 1. Land clearing and construction-disposal of waste materials by open burning must be 

permitted by NDEQ and/or City of Omaha. 2. Asbestos assessment and abatement is needed prior to any 

structure demolition. Prior notification to NDEQ and City of Omaha required. 3. Fugitive dust control during all 

land clearing and construction activities is required by NDEQ and City of Omaha. Any contamination of city 

roadways will require prevention and/or clean-up per the City of Omaha specifications. 4. Construction and/or 

Operating permits for stationary engines, boilers, emergency generation equipment and other equipment may 

be required by the City of Omaha Air Quality Control and/or NDEQ. 

Construction Storm Water Program – Blayne Renner, 402-471-8330; Waste Compliance – Jeff Edwards, 402-471-

8309; Air Quality Program – Yvonne Austin, 402-471-3305. 

Until further along in the planning process, it is unknown whether there may be additional regulatory 

requirements. We strongly urge the project sponsors to make contact with the Department; contact numbers 

are provided above. It has been our experience that early and open communication helps facilitate the 

permitting process. If you have any questions about the permitting process, or any other questions, feel free to 

contact me at (402) 471-6974. For more information, please visit our website at www.deq.state.ne.us. Good 

luck with your project!

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The 

Tier 1 Service Level Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will identify the types of 

permits and other approvals that may be necessary for the overall Project. However, the 

specific permits and approvals that will be needed for each section of the overall Project will 

not be known until after Tier 1 is complete and the Tier 2 NEPA analysis (not funded) is 

completed for each of the sections. Coordination with the resource agencies will continue 

throughout the Tier 1 and 2 processes to facilitate identification of permits and approvals that 

will be required prior to construction of each section of the overall Project. We appreciate 

your providing the individuals to contact regarding permitting as we progress through the Tier 

1 and 2 NEPA study processes.

5/21/12 Metra Commuter Rail General; Rail - Freight Rail; Rail - 

Improvements; Transportation - 

Current Train Traffic; Funding of 

the Project

Metra wishes to provide the following comments regarding the Chicago to Omaha Regional 

Passenger Rail System Planning Study Draft Alternatives Analysis (AA) Report. The BNSF line 

between Chicago and Aurora, which is part of Alternative 4A, the alternative to be carried forward 

for the analysis in the Tier I Service level EIS, hosts 94 revenue and 12 non-revenue Metra trains 

each weekday (not 64 daily trains as noted in the AA) and has the highest ridership of Metra’s 11 

lines. The AA discusses the fact that this segment is heavily utilized by freight, Metra and Amtrak 

trains, but it does not specifically address how Alternative 4A will contend with congestion on this 

line east of Aurora. Metra believes that Chicago-Omaha passenger trains may not be able to be 

accommodated on this line without additional infrastructure, and that acquisition of expanded right 

of way will be difficult in the Chicago area. It is not clear that these additional infrastructure and 

right of way costs are accurately reflected in this analysis. The potential extension of Metra service 

beyond Aurora to Oswego, which is noted in the document, would add commuter train traffic west 

of Aurora and may require additional infrastructure in this portion of the line as well. Preliminary 

engineering and an Environmental Assessment for the proposed Oswego extension are currently 

underway. Another constraint, not mentioned in the draft AA, is the limited ability to accommodate 

additional trains on the south side of Chicago Union Station, which is currently at capacity during 

many times of the day. Recommendations to address this issue are currently being developed as 

part of the Chicago Union Station Master Plan study. In addition to Metra’s concerns regarding the 

integration of new intercity trains with the traffic currently using the line, we want to ensure that 

capacity is preserved for future expansion of Metra service in this successful and growing commuter 

corridor. We ask that you keep Metra’s Division of Strategic Capital Planning informed as this study 

progresses, and look forward to working with you during further development of this project. Please 

feel free to contact me by phone (312-322-8022) or email (lciavere@metrarr.com) with information 

or email

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Iowa 

and Illinois DOT’s are aware of Metra’s preliminary engineering/NEPA activities which are 

currently underway for the extension of service between Aurora and Oswego. BNSF and 

Amtrak are cooperating partners on the Chicago to Omaha Study and have been engaged 

throughout the alternatives analysis. BNSF is generating the RTC modeling for the corridor 

segment between Chicago and Wyanet which will identify the infrastructure needed to support 

their existing and proposed services for a 20-year horizon (as required by the federal funds) 

that includes operations for railroads with trackage rights on the corridor or a segment of the 

corridor. 

Due to limited funding opportunities and considering the level of investment required, a 

phased approach is planned for the Chicago to Omaha service, initially starting as two round 

trips per day to Moline with a maximum speed of 79 mph. We will conduct additional 

coordination with Metra as the project progresses into the Tier 2 studies. 
Public Comments and Responses

Page 4 of 14

4/20/12 Public Involvement; Routes - 

Location Specific - IA City

I notice that on one of the proposed routes it shows it still going through Iowa City, yet there is no 

public meeting set for Iowa City. I suggest if your going to run this thing through peoples cities you 

have a meeting in that city.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

4/20/12 Routes - Alternative Route; Routes - 

Location Specific Comment; Use of 

the Project

First, the Chicago - Quad Cities - Iowa City proposal needs to be part of any alternatives review for 

service to Des Moines and Council Bluffs. At the very least, combining routes consolidates service on 

the eastern end and reduces operating and station costs. Second, an Iowa train must serve its most 

populous city and capitol. Reaching Omaha is secondary and is just across the Missouri River from 

Council Bluffs. Third, service should be extended to Omaha and Lincoln in cooperation with 

Nebraska.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. In an 

effort for Iowa to become eligible for future federal funds, we must prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and submit it to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) for the 

Chicago to Omaha corridor. The EIS study requires us to analyze all of the historic passenger 

rail routes that operated between Chicago and Omaha. One of the routes considered in the 

alternatives reviews incorporates the Chicago–Quad Cities-Iowa City connection as your 

comment suggests. This route also would serve Des Moines and is in close proximity to Iowa’s 

major population centers. 

In 2009, when the Iowa DOT applied for federal funding for the passenger rail planning study, 

the extension to Nebraska was considered. At that time, the Nebraska Department of Roads 

indicated they would not be a coapplicant for funds for the planning study. Iowa DOT and 

Illinois DOT determined that the study limits would be from Chicago to Omaha, which is 

consistent with the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative’s (MWRRI) vision for expanded passenger 

rail in the Midwest. For more information on the MWRRI, see link at 

http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/passenger/mwrrie_exec_report_2004.pdf 

4/23/12 General Your route maps do not indicate where the Current AMTRAK routes are and will they continue with 

new service? A map showing the routes would be helpful. Thanks you.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Iowa, 

unlike some other surrounding states, is served by two long distance Amtrak routes and 

currently has no intercity routes. The two long distance routes consist of: 1) California Zephyr, 

which runs on the existing BNSF freight railroad through Southern Iowa (Route 5 on the map). 

This route runs eastbound and westbound daily between Chicago to California. 2) Southwest 

Chief, which also operates on existing BNSF railroad right-of-way has a daily operation in both 

directions but only stops in Ft. Madison, IA. The California Zephyr and the Southwest Chief are 

the responsibility of Amtrak as part of their long-distance network, and the State of Iowa is not 

involved in the decisions related to this service. Currently, Amtrak has no plans to modify their 

services on these long-distance routes. 

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment
Public Comments and Responses

Page 5 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

4/23/12 Routes - Location Specific - IA City; 

Routes - Route 4; General; 

Cummulative Impacts; Safety - Grade 

Crossings; Noise - Loud Rail Traffic

To the Chicago-Omaha Rail Planning Study: My comment addresses the criterion of environmental 

impact. As you may know, the Iowa Interstate trains run through several Iowa City urban 

neighborhoods including mine. They make an incredible lot of noise. We get blasted by locomotives 

many times each day, and because the track curves, screeching wheels. As you can imagine this is 

harmful to property values and neighborhood maintenance. If the traffic is to be increased by adding 

passenger service, the service ought to be coupled with the building of a federal Quiet Corridor to 

protect neighborhoods along the tracks. This improvement also should include higher-level 

protection for grade crossings so the locomotives won't have to blow the horn every few blocks. In 

my neighborhood the track runs next to a day care center for little kids. (Greenwood Ave. 52246). It 

has warning bells but no kidproof barrier. I urge the planning study to integrate with its plan a grant 

proposal for the building of the Quiet Corridor. The CC goes to Mr. Geoff Fruin of the Iowa city 

Council. I hope that this idea will find support among the people planning new rail service.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of the necessary improvements for implementing passenger rail from Chicago to Omaha, 

gates and flashing lights will be required for every public crossing along the entire route, 

including crossings that now only have flashing lights and/or passive signage. If the speeds are 

ultimately higher than 79 mph, there may be a requirement to install additional safety 

mechanisms at the crossings. For a community to obtain Quiet Zone status, the local 

jurisdiction must work with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) as well as the host 

railroad to determine eligibility for a community becoming a Quiet Zone designee. Typically, 

additional safety improvements are required at crossings and the cost is the responsibility of 

the local community. Since that initial request must come directly from the city officials, we 

recommend that you continue to work with your local officials to discuss options for 

establishing Quiet Zone(s).

4/30/12 Public Involvement I would like to know how I can particpate in the online open house meeting regarding the Chicago to 

Omaha regional rail system routes.

Commenter was added to the Project email list which included emails with information on how 

to participate in the online open house meeting.

5/1/12 Routes - Location Specific Comment; 

Use of the Project

It is unfortunate that amont the several proposed passenger rail service tracks through Iowa, a Quad 

Cities to Cedar Rapids to Iowa City to Des Moines to Omaha route wasn't considered. I think 

passenger rail service linking Iowa City and Chicago is intelligent and inevitable, and I'm primarily in 

favor of it because so many Universtiy of Iowa students are from Chicago. Safer transportation for 

them to and from their parents' homes should be everyone's goal. But, not including a Cedar RapidsIowa City link is missing a real opportunity to serve two communites that share an untold number of 

commuters.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Route 

2, which goes through Cedar Rapids was considered, but there is not currently an existing direct 

route that goes through Quad Cities, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City on to Des Moines and Omaha. 

We do understand that there is a large population within the Cedar Rapids metro area that 

would be served by passenger rail and since there currently is not a east/west route that 

connects all the communities mentioned, our planning includes the use of a feeder bus system 

from Cedar Rapids to Iowa City. This bus service is being studied as part of the project and 

would look into allowing passenger rail customers to buy one ticket through Amtrak to travel 

both on the bus from Cedar Rapids as well as boarding the train in Iowa City for travel either 

east or west, depending on the customer’s travel plans. 

5/1/12 Safety; General; Rail - Operations; 

Transportation - Bus Service

It is great to have the opportunity for this railroad strategic Alternative 5 routes. Level occupied? 

Public safety? Buses competitionn. Do we really have that many people for 5 round trips a day?

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of this study, we will be analyzing the full build out of the proposed service which would 

include 5 to 7 round trips per day. We will consider all the scenarios related to a full build out 

of the service in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We do though, plan to 

implement this service incrementally in phases. It is likely that service will not initially be 

Chicago to Omaha at 110 mph with 7 round trips per day, but instead more likely would be from 

Chicago to Iowa City at 79 mph with 2 round trips per day and incrementally increased based on 

funding opportunities and customer demand. This would be an extension to Iowa City of the 

currently funded service development program for the Chicago to Quad Cities. Increasing 

frequencies and decreasing travel times by increasing speeds are key factors in increasing 

revenue and ridership and reducing the operating subsidy for the service. 

5/1/12 General I find it hard to disagree with data presented and see routes 4 and 4A as the best route. My major 

interest beyond doing whatever I can to get the Iowa legislature to support this project is to make 

sure thruway bus service is considered. My hope is that many cities in Iowa not on selected route 

have access to frequently daily rail service to Omaha/Chicago, not just Des Moines and Iowa City.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 6 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/1/12 Routes - Routing Process If you go through big cities Moline, Iowa City, Des Moines...then be sure you have a fast route in and 

out of town. I travel CHI-STL and it seems many delays are in Chicago or Springfield.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/1/12 General How can I obtain online the complete (not just summary) Draft Alternatives Analysis? I would like to 

be able to study this document PRIOR to attending the Council Bluffs meeting on Thursday.

Commenter was provided a hard copy version of the document at the May 3rd public meeting.

5/1/12 Public Involvement; General The exec study of the draft alternatives not available - clicking on the offer just sends me back to the 

beginning of this "open meeting". When will it be? And, it seems this "open meeting" is really just a 

notification of the decisions already made by the unnamed panel. Right?

Thank you for your interest in the Chicago to Omaha Passenger Rail Study. We

understand your concerns. Beginning May 1st, the route alternatives screening

analysis, including an explanation of the screening process, will be available to view on

our website, www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha. If you have any other questions, please

feel free to respond directly to this email. Thank you.

5/2/12 Routes - Alternative Route; Routes - 

Route 2; Use of the Project

In looking at the options for routes it appears the red route from Chicago to Cedar Rapids/Iowa City 

is the most direct on will have the shortest travel time. From Cedar Rapids/Iowa City to Omaha it 

looks like the Blue line is the most direct and will have the shortest travel time. It also includes Des 

Moines. Is there a possibility to select part of each route and connect them just west of Cedar 

Rapids/Iowa City? I would try to utilize the passenger rail if it were convenient to access. Rockwell in 

Cedar Rapids has many business trips that go through Chicago and could utilize the rail if it were 

quick and efficient.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Route 

2, which goes through Cedar Rapids was considered, but there is not currently an existing route 

that goes through Quad Cities, Cedar Rapids and Iowa City on to Des Moines and Omaha. We 

do understand that there is a large population within the Cedar Rapids metro area that would 

be served by passenger rail and since there currently is not an east/west route that connects all 

the communities mentioned, the next best opportunity for service is to introduce a feeder bus 

system from Cedar Rapids to Iowa City. This bus service is being studied as part of the project 

and would allow passenger rail customers to buy one ticket through Amtrak to travel both on 

the bus from Cedar Rapids as well as boarding the train in Iowa City for travel either east or 

west, depending on the customer’s preference. 

5/2/12 Economic Impacts; Station Facilities 

& Upgrades; General

Questions: 1) As part of future planning, will there be any analysis of potential economic impacts on 

locations along the selected route? 2) Will there be an opportunity for rolling stock construction, 

finishing, or maintenance? 3) Will there be any opportunity for developing concessions at stations 

alone the select route?

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The 

ultimate goal of this study is to determine a route that is most feasible for passenger rail service 

with the least amount of environmental impacts. 

An analysis of more direct economic impacts such as short- and long-term job creation and 

transportation benefits including efficiency and reliability of movement of passengers or goods; 

reductions in operations and/or maintenance costs for existing services (i.e., highway 

maintenance costs); reductions in vehicle operating costs; mobility and low income mobility; 

environmental effects; accident reduction; and congestion relief will be included in the Service 

Development Plan for the selected route that is being prepared as part of this study. 

Planning, environmental and design for site-specific stations and equipment maintenance 

facility(ies) will be part of the next phase of the project which is not yet funded. Opportunities 

for station development, including concessions, would be identified and considered a benefit to 

the project. Iowa DOT will work closely with the local communities in the planning for the 

station sites.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 7 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/2/12 Station Facilities & Upgrades; Routes 

- Routing Process

I have submitted comment previously online regarding the use of Iowa Interstate (Old Rock Island) 

Railway. Some additional ideas I have are: 1) Considering a raised line to by-pass the “diamond” at SE 

18th St. 2) Developing a hub station at Bonneville, as DMACC west is nearby, Waukee is only 6 miles 

away, Jordan Creek Mall is just up the hill and that is the fastest growing are in the DSM metro area. 

There is an existing 9,000 ft siging at Booneville and a lot of open land is nearby. The grade is flat and 

straight. Iowa Interstate already use Booneville to pass their trains each night. 3) to get people to be 

“hooked” on the idea of using rail transportation, perhaps a rail version of a “park & ride” from the 

Iowa State Fair to somewhere near Altoona could be tried. Rail lines already exist near the 

fairgrounds and would encourage people who have never travelled by train to support passenger 

train service.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of the next step for this project, we will be reviewing the infrastructure needs as well as 

potential station locations for future service between Chicago and Omaha. We will not do the 

detailed design analysis until after this project is completed and the Tier II study starts (not yet 

funded). Planning for services to support special events, such as the Iowa State Fair, would 

occur as opportunities arise once the service is implemented. Thank you for all of your ideas 

and we will take all potential alternatives into consideration.

5/2/12 Rail - Speed It's got to be really fast or it won't compete against fast cars Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of this study, we will evaluate the proposed service at various speeds including 79, 90 and 

110mph. At this point in the study, we do not know what the ultimate speed will be for the 

service, but we do realize it is extremely important that any new passenger rail service must 

compete with automobile travel from Chicago to Omaha to be a viable alternative mode of 

transportation.

5/2/12 Routes - Route 4A; Transportation - 

Bus Service; Rail - Speed

4A provides the most access to population and would be the most cost effective. It would be 

preferable if trains could run at 110 mph for maximum competitiveness. I would use this train for 

maximum mobility around Iowa. The use of the Iowa Interstate Railway would probabaly be more 

conducive to 110 mph running. Would it be possible to increase mobility and ridership with 

dedicated feeder buses?

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Based 

on your comment, you are likely aware that we are evaluating operating at various speeds 

including 79, 90 and 110 mph and the associated infrastructure improvements needed to 

support the operating speeds and frequencies. This analysis must be closely coordinated with 

the host railroad so as to not interrupt the current and planned freight service. At this point in 

the study, we do not know what the ultimate speed will be for intercity passenger train 

operations, but will have a better understanding when the Draft EIS (Environmental Impact 

Statement) is completed in Fall 2012. Also, as part of this study, we will look at feeder bus 

opportunities at several locations adjacent to that can connect to the 4A route. 

5/2/12 Routes - Route 4 Both as a college student and a leisure traveler I this this rail would be a huge improvement over the 

current road and air options. From a business traveler perspective I worry that the time it take to get 

from say Des Moines to Chicago would not be an improvement over driving, therefore making the 

limited cost – benefit insufficient. The rail would have to be both cheaper than air travel and quicker 

than driving to truly make it useful. The existing Amtrak service does not achieve this. The new rail 

system does not seem to adequately reach the biggest urban areas. A train timed for a minimal 

layover in Omaha to then continue west on Amtrak to Denver or onward would be hugely beneficial. 

As a former Omaha resident, I’d like to know where the Omaha station would be, especially since the 

Osceola Amtrak station is so inconvenient for a Des Moines resident.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of this study, we will be evaluating operating at various speeds including 79, 90 and 110 

mph. At this point in the study, we do not know what the ultimate speed will be, but we do 

realize it is extremely important that any new passenger rail service be competitive with 

automobile travel from Chicago to Omaha to be a viable alternative mode of transportation. It 

is very likely that this service will be competitive with the current fare structure for air travel 

from airports in Iowa. 

The current Amtrak trains that travel through Iowa are considered long distance services, 

traveling between Chicago to the West Coast. This new proposed corridor service is considered 

intercity passenger rail which varies in many ways and thus the service provided will be 

different. The long distance service does typically run through Iowa at late hours in the evening 

so it is unlikely that the intercity services and long distance services will overlap closely, but all 

of those details will have to be determined as part of the Tier II study, which is not funded and 

will occur at a later time.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 8 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/2/12 Public Involvement; General; Routes - 

Location Specific - Grinnell

Great plan for the future of Iowa and our country. Legislative support may be needed and each of us 

should contact all representative and particularly the Republicans. The favored route brings so many 

options to our community of Grinnell. The Iowa Transportation Museum actually promotes and 

works to build support of passenger rail. We look forward to being a depot stop and have space 

available at the museum property site. Our first "phase" of construction is complete. Let us host a 

meeting to educate our area and the future of this dream!

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/2/12 Rail - Speed; Noise - Loud Rail Traffic; 

Rail - Freight Rail; Routes - Location 

Specific - Des Moines; Routes - 

Location Specific - IA City; 

Cummulative Impacts

The route from DSM to Iowa City would put the train literally in my back yard. Currently there are 

freight trains that travel on this, but no doubt this would add more train traffic and be louder. I’d like 

to know what impact this would have on a residential area, feet from houses. Will they tear up the 

tracks, how fast will the passenger trains go? How much noise will they make? We need to know the 

impact on our homes and lives before a decision is made!! Will someone please respond to me.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of the environmental analysis related to this study, we must determine noise and vibration 

impact on the corridor. We are currently not within that phase of the project so it is a bit 

difficult to answer some of the questions you have posed, but we can answer the following:

1) We are considering between 2 to 7 round trips daily in each direction for the proposed 

service.

2) Because this service will be supported by the state, we will be responsible for any additional 

maintenance on the track that would be necessary as part of the new passenger rail service. 

The track standards for passenger rail are quite different than that for the current freight that is 

on Route 4, and so we will be required to maintain the track conditions at a higher quality 

standard for many reasons (including safety and higher operating speeds). As well, we will be 

required to install lights and gates at every public crossing along the entire route, including at 

crossings that now only have lights and/or passive signage. If the speeds are ultimately higher 

than 79 mph, there will be a requirement to install additional safety measures at crossings. 

These crossing improvements will ultimately help make each crossing safer for the public.

3) We will be evaluating passenger train speeds of 79, 90 and 110 mph for the new service. 

Actual passenger train operating speeds will be determined based on the track and signal 

infrastructure in place on the corridor. 

5/2/12 Routes - Route 4; Routes - Route 2; 

Routes - Alternative Route

I suggest a wise market-driven route would be the red route from Chicago to Several miles west of 

Cedar Rapids, there making a new connection to the blue route as its closest point, and continuing 

thru Des Moines. A response is optional.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 9 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/2/12 Use of the Project; Routes - Location 

Specific Comment

Thank you for the oporotunity to comment. I plan to use the rail system as it develops. I would have 

liked to see the Iowa Falls route along the former Illinois Central utilized. Perhaps an overpass might 

be used over the Union Pacific Kansas City line.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. We 

studied several routes as part of this analysis. Since it is anticipated that the State will have 

limited resources for the next several years, it was necessary to select just one route to 

determine implementation steps to initiate intercity passenger rail services from Chicago to 

Omaha. With all of the things we considered (environmental impact, cost of implementation, 

length of route, population served by the route, host railroad freight capacity concerns and 

other factors), it was determined that Route 4A would best meet that criteria as we move 

forward with this first initial route across the state. We are hopeful to be successful in 

implementing this service over the next several years and then we will discuss potential 

additional routes serving the state.

5/3/12 Routes - Alternative Route Please consider Omaha to Denver too! Thanks! Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/3/12 Public Involvement; General; 

Transportation - Alternative 

Transportation Mode

Need alternative to auto and plane. Need to get going instead of studying. How can I get more 

involved?

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. In an 

effort for Iowa to become eligible for future federal funds, we must prepare an EIS 

(Environmental Impact Statement) and submit it to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) 

for the Chicago to Omaha corridor. If we do not follow the guidelines set forth by the federal 

government, we will not be eligible for any future federal funding. The State of Iowa recognizes 

that to implement this project, we will need the assistance of the federal funding assistance. 

You can get involved by visiting the following website: 

http://www.downtowndesmoines.com/pages/passenger-rail to see how the city of Des Moines 

is getting involved with the passenger rail effort. Contact information for the City of Des 

Moines can also be found on this website. We appreciate your continued support for this 

project as the study phase is completed, and hopefully as we enter into the service 

development program phase with future federal and state funding authorizations.

5/3/12 Station Facilities & Upgrades; Routes 

- Location Specific Comment

Omaha's Station: Former Burlington Station (vacant) - high speed station - Amtrak Sta - Greyhound 

Sta - Metro Bus Sta - Light Rail Sta (Street Car) - Taxi Sta - Restaurants - Offices for new 

transportation Hub. Thanks!

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. 

Economic feasibility is being evaluated as part of the study related to the communities that will 

have intercity passenger rail stations on the Chicago to Omaha corridor. The initial high-level 

economic analysis related to the cities to be served includes identifying opportunities for 

intermodal connections. The actual details related to the station sites, designs, intermodal 

connections, and economic development are part of the next phase Tier II study which is not 

yet funded.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 10 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/3/12 Rail - Operations; Station Facilities & 

Upgrades

It is important to look at Missouri River crossing options – Can the swing bridge be used? – Can the 

U.P. expand their bridge in Blair abd off-load freight traffic from the downtown bridge? Are there 

long-term benefits by connecting to Eppley Airport from a Multi-modal standpoint? Similarly, are 

there long-term benefits from the standpoint of regional transit by connecting a portion of western 

Iowa to downtown Omaha and the expanding transit network in Omaha?

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The 

Tier I EIS will address the passenger rail corridor alignment between Council Bluffs and Omaha, 

which includes the Missouri River crossing. A Tier 2 environmental document, which is not 

funded, will need to be prepared to determine the preferred alternative for the Missouri River 

crossing. This will include review of expanding the UP bridge at Blair to accommodate freight 

traffic, allowing use of the UP bridge at Council Bluffs over the Missouri River for passenger rail. 

Modifications to existing structures (including the swing bridge) or construction of new 

structure(s) over the Missouri River will be a significant cost element of the project and will be 

evaluated in Tier 2.

Multimodal connections will be analyzed in the Tier 2 environmental documents and 

preliminary engineering for the preferred locations for station sites. Major communities 

throughout the study area have expressed their support of the project based on the long term 

economic and quality of life benefits generated from multimodal connections; revitalization of 

urban areas near future stations by attracting higher-density and mixed use development, 

which provides new employment and housing options; and linking cities along the corridor, 

thereby improving mobility and expanding employment opportunities over larger geographic 

areas which benefits employers by expanding the labor market and offering employees more 

choices of where to live.

5/3/12 Routes - Route 4; People with 

Disabilities; Transportation - 

Highway Congestion; Train 

Ammenities

Thank you for all your hard work! Your doing the right thing for us and our children. As there has 

been a great past history of rail travel in our area, its renewal is imparative. As I look all the 

schedules. I prefer the BLUE route based on population density Omaha, CB, Des Moines, colleges and 

proximity to I-80. Your planning on all levels especially environmental concerns are important. Since 

the Blue route is parallel to the Interstate. How many cars, or trucks would you take off the road? 

What shipping opportunities would I have shipping Omaha to Des Moines – east? With wifi and other 

conveniences how can we compete against the airline to make a better ride? Since I teach special 

needs students what about the advantage of wheel chair bound persons and their needs. For what it 

costs to build an interstate per foot rail should have an advantage. Thank you Iowa DOT for your time 

and effort. I will promote your agenda when important with family, friends and politicians.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of the Service Development Plan for the preferred alternative, a benefit cost analysis will 

be prepared that will include transportation benefits which consist of efficiency and reliability of 

movement of passengers or goods; reductions in operations and/or maintenance costs for 

existing services (i.e., highway maintenance costs); reductions in vehicle operating costs; 

mobility and low income mobility; environmental effects; accident reduction; and congestion 

relief. Shipping opportunities would need to be discussed with the freight railroad and are not 

part of this study; our effort is solely related to planning for intercity passenger rail services. 

The new passenger rail equipment that would be used for this service would have wifi 

capabilities. There would also be a café and state-of-the-art accommodations for a comfortable 

ride. All of the equipment and stations will be ADA accessible.

5/3/12 Station Facilities & Upgrades; Agency 

Coordination; Routes - Location 

Specific Comment

The selected route clearly makes the most sense. As the EIS process move forward, I fell it would be 

advantageous to approach Omaha city officials and NDOR staff about the possibility for refurbishing 

the abandoned Burlington Station in Omaha. The potential for it to serve as a high end terminal 

station with economic development consequences might persuade Nebraska to more actively 

engage and endorse the project.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. We 

have approached the Nebraska Department of Roads concerning this study and plan to discuss 

station logistics with the City of Omaha as well. Due to freight rail congestion, there are some 

complexities that need to be addressed with the host railroad to cross the Missouri River from 

Iowa into Nebraska. Discussions are ongoing with the host railroad and will continue as we 

move forward with the planning for this project. Decisions related to crossing the Missouri 

River will be made as part of the next Tier II study phase, which is not funded.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 11 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/3/12 General; Routes - Route 4A From a 10,000 foot view, the route 4a looks good. If the data that supports the “screening findings” is 

accurate than it looks fine. 26 miles separates 4 and 4a, not sure the difference in cost, but I imagine 

it is cheaper to go with less miles (unless terrain or other factors cancel that out). I look at this from 

the view of Chi to Omaha though, so the stopping points in Iowa do not really mean much to me; 

Citizens from Iowa/Illinois may feel more loyalty to their respective cities. It would be nice if we 

could compare with each alternative. 1. total costs; 2. theoretical travel speeds/times; 3. How this 

will be funded in the future

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As 

part of this analysis we have reviewed all initial 5 routes with some of the following screening 

criteria: environmental impacts, cost of implementation, length of route, population served by 

the route, host railroad freight capacity concerns and other factors. Based on the criteria used 

as part of the study with FRA’s involvement, Route 4A was deemed as most reasonable and 

feasible. We anticipate that we will need to seek federal funding for implementation of the 

service with a state matching funds likely required.

5/6/12 Transportation - Current Train 

Traffic; Rail - Speed

Would the current Amtrak service be eliminated if this project is approved? IMO, two competing rail 

services between Chicago and Omaha are not financially viable. At what speed would this rail service 

travel? IMO, this service needs to travel at speeds in excess of 100 mph in order to compete with air 

service and be successful for the long term. If the speed is only 50-60 mph, people will continue to 

drive their cars. Please respond.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. There 

is no intention of eliminating the current Amtrak long-distance services, traveling between 

Chicago and the West Coast, in Southern Iowa if this service is implemented. The current longdistance Amtrak service is not funded by the state of Iowa, it is solely operated by Amtrak in 

coordination with the host railroad, BNSF, as part of Amtrak’s core network. This new 

proposed service would be state-funded with coordination from Amtrak and the host railroads, 

but would run solely between Chicago and Omaha, unlike the long-distance service. We are 

looking at various speeds for this route, including 79, 90 and 110 mph. We understand the need 

to be competitive with the automobile and so it is very important to create a service that can 

be used by the traveling public as a transportation option. More information concerning these 

details will be available in the Fall 2012 when we release the draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS).

5/7/12 Drugs/Crime; Funding of the Project; 

General; Mailing List Request; 

Transportation - Highway Congestion

I had a lengthy conversation with a gentleman from Cedar Rapids today. He discussed his concern 

with new passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa and so I have listed some bullet points below 

based on what I captured from the conversation. He wanted the subject of his concern to be called 

“Hypothesis of Concern”. 

- Most of his concerns were about the increase in crime in the Cedar Rapids that has attributed with 

additional folks from Chicago moving to the area lately. He is worried that the new passenger rail 

service could help increase this activity/problem. 

- Concerned that if we introduce new passenger rail service, Iowa won’t be the best kept secret in 

the country anymore. 

- Encouraged us to look at improving highways near Cedar Rapids and Iowa City to help with traffic 

congestion versus new passenger rail. 

- Concerned about government spending for a new project like this versus upgrading our current 

highway system. 

He did seem to want to get a better understanding of the project so he also asked to be included in 

our mailing list request.

Amanda Martin, Iowa DOT, talked with a gentleman from Cedar Rapids by phone on Monday, 

May 7, 2012, regarding his concerns related to initiating intercity passenger rail service on the 

Chicago to Omaha corridor. His concerns are documented in Public Comment #144. In order to 

provide the gentleman with information on the project as it progresses, he has been added to 

the mailing list for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study.

5/16/12 Rail - Speed; Transportation - 

Current Train Traffic; Rail - 

Improvements; Routes - Route 4; 

Rail - Operations; Use of the Project; 

Routes - Location Specific Comment; 

Station Facilities & Upgrades; Rail - 

Freight Rail; Corrections to the 

Document; Routes - Alternative 

Comment superceded by resubmittal on May 21, 2012. Due to the length of the May 21, 2012 

comment email and length of the response, they are reproduced in full following this table.

Comment superceded by resubmittal on May 21, 2012. Due to the length of the May 21, 2012 

comment email and length of the response, they are reproduced in full following this table.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 12 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/17/12 Routes - Route 3; Routes - Route 5; 

Rail - Freight Rail; Routes - Route 4

I have seen the different routes, and I think it is down to the IAIS and the old Milwaukee Road. The 

UP line through Ames and Boone has rigorous freight traffic, the BNSF in Osceola already has 

passenger rail going over it, and the CP through Fort Dodge is WAY too far from Des Moines 

(although I think they are working on a Chicago to Dubuque line). The IAIS is good due to the fact it 

hits all the major locations, however it is not a good choice for high speed rail. It is noted that the 

IAIS’s line basically weaves around I-80 like a snake, which will limit it’s speed. The old Milwaukee 

Road right of way is essentially a double track straight shot across Iowa, the old streamliners were 

able to go up to at least 120 miles per hour on that route. It is also abandoned, which means newer 

and better track could be put in without having to upgrade current track. However checking the 

route on Google Earth, there are a couple houses and rail trails occupying some space. It doesn’t 

serve Des Moines directly, however a light rail or bus line could be put in to connect it to wherever 

the station is (Slater, Woodward, Madrid?) To conclude, the IAIS would work great for a commuter 

rail. However if you’re aiming for a real high speed system, the Milwaukee Road’s right of way is your 

best bet. A reply is not required, however it would be nice for me to know whether this is being 

considered or if it goes straight to the trash

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. After 

careful evaluation of the key criteria identified by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for 

developing a high-speed intercity passenger rail corridor, Route Alternative 4-A has been 

identified as the corridor meeting the project “purpose and need.” Route Alternative 4-A is 

composed of the BNSF-owned corridor between Chicago and Wyanet and the Iowa Interstate 

Railroad-owned corridor between Wyanet and Council Bluffs. Key criteria evaluated included: 

1) Purpose and Need including travel demand, ridership and revenue forecasts, preliminary 

running time, and competitive and attractive travel modes; 2) technical feasibility including 

passenger and freight capacity, and economic feasibility related to alignment, structures, and 

grade crossings; 3) economic feasibility; and 4) environmental concerns.

5/19/12 Public Involvement This comment form does not let us see or interact with other comments? Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/21/12 Support the Project; Transportation - 

Bus Service; Routes - Location 

Specific - Des Moines; Routes - 

Location Specific Comment; Station 

Facilities & Upgrades

I am very much in favor of a passenger rail system in Iowa. Specific recommendations and ideas I 

suggest are: 1. Plenty of long-term parking – hopefully free. This is very important. People have to be 

able to access the train. 2. I can see the logic of having the rouge to through Des Moines, but I hope 

you will carefully consider going through Ames. It is home to the Iowa DOT, the Animal Disease Lab. 

and most importantly, Iowa State University. Ames also has a major medical center. Perhaps it would 

be possible to go through Ames some days and Des Moines other days. 3. Whichever city it goes 

through, could a shuttle service be coordinated between that city and the other one? If the train 

goes through Ames, I’ll be able to use it. If it goes through Des Moines, it would depend on being able 

to get to and from my home and the train station in a timely manner. I’m sure this would be true for 

many people in both cities.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Route 

2, which goes through Ames was considered, but is highly congested with freight traffic and 

cannot handle the addition of passenger trains. We do understand that there is a large 

population within the Ames metro area that would be served by passenger rail so we will 

research the possibility of introducing a feeder bus system from Ames to Des Moines. This bus 

service is being studied as part of the project and would look into allowing passenger rail 

customers to buy one ticket through Amtrak to travel both on the bus from Ames as well as 

boarding the train in Des Moines for travel either east or west, depending on the customer’s 

preference. 

5/21/12 Safety - Grade Crossings; 

Transportation - Current Train 

Traffic; Rail - Speed; Routes - 

Alternative Route; Rail - Upgrades; 

Rail - Freight Rail; Routes - Location 

Specific Comment; Station Facilities 

& Upgrades; Rail - Operations; 

General

Due to the length of the comment email and length of the response, they are reproduced in full 

following this table.

Due to the length of the comment email and length of the response, they are reproduced in full 

following this table.
Public Comments and Responses

Page 13 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

Purpose and Need: Is travel demand really increasing that much? FHWA travel monitoring trends 

show nationwide vehicle miles traveled levels the same as 7 years and 9 months ago. Expansion of 

highways may be increasingly more costly and can create severe impacts on adjoining properties. 

May be so, but. High Speed Rail is likely much more expensive per dollar of user value created. See 

CHSRA and their ballooning costs. High Speed Rail can also create sever impacts to adjoining 

properties. Please document based on study findings to date evidenced of reduced impact via use of 

HSR compared to other reasonable and prudent modes. The cost of rail is less influenced by fossil 

fuel prices is irrelevant if the fluctuation other modes is still lower than the expected price of high 

speed rail including capital subsidies and operating subsidies.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route 

Analysis effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The 

Tier 1 NEPA analysis of alternatives included consideration of other travel modes such as 

cars/trucks, buses, and airplanes. Projected changes in ridership based of the Project were 

evaluated and compared to future baseline conditions without the Project. Service alternatives 

(frequency of trains, station stops, and speeds) were considered, with some carried forward for 

detailed analysis in the Tier 1 Service Level Draft EIS.

Potential impacts to the human and natural environment, both adverse and beneficial, were 

evaluated as part of the Alternatives Analysis and will be documented in the Tier 1 Service Level 

Draft EIS Purpose and Need Slide II: Are other alternatives such as eliminating current mode bottlenecks and 

assisting curbside bus service being considered. These two alternatives may at a much lower price 

provide a much higher return on investment? Reducing travel times compared to an automobile 

seems predetermined that rail is the solution. What if reducing travel time of the automobile is more 

efficient in terms of total cost including assessing the externalities of all modes considered. How do 

you know their will be reduced fuel compared to the automobile? Does that assess the price before 

or after consideration of subsidies to all modes under consideration? Improve travel reliability is an 

excellent goal as long as cost including subsidies is used to assess the reliability. Improve ride quality 

and comfort is an excellent goal as long as cost including subsidies is used to assess comfort. By how 

much and at what cost would highway and airport be reduced.

Routes: What about routes for other modes? What about bottleneck corrections for existing modes 

and along existing routes between termini. Screening does not contain comparison to the potentially 

reasonable and feasible alternative of providing additional capacity to existing modes between the 

termini specifically at bottlenecks. Screening does not address potential curbside bus service. 

Screening use of High, Medium and Low ridership is not placed in context. Suggest you use High 

ridership as no subsidy for capital and operating costs. Medium as no subsidy for operating costs and 

low requiring subsidy for both operating and capital costs. Economic feasibility seemed to need more 

substance. Are there any funding sources for HSR when compare to value other alternative will 

provide! What are the impacts to existing freight lines and how are they shown.

Tier 1: The selection of the Tier I route should not be made until assessing other potentially 

reasonable and feasible modes other than HSR.

Other Passenger Rail Corridors: Did these others compare return on investment versus other existing 

modes? The big question is how you find the funding for the improvements. Planning without 

consideration of funding will and what value is demonstrated by users spending money to purchase 

the rail service will likely lead to no project or a wasteful project. Consideration of Environmental 

benefits should be an important part of the analysis, but that cannot be done without establishing 

the Env. costs of all the potential reasonable and feasible options.

5/21/12 Routes - Location Specific Comment; 

Use of the Project; Rail - Operations

I live in Dubuque, Iowa. If I was able to complete a trip from Dubuque to Chicago in a maximum of 5 

hours, including an automobile drive from Dubuque to where I could catch the train, then I'd 

probably use this service four times year, round trip.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.

5/21/12 Rail - Speed; Cummulative Impacts; 

Project Need; Transportation - 

Alternative Transportation Mode; 

Funding of the Project; Rail - Freight 

Rail; Project Purpose; Transportation 

- Highway Congestion; Economic 

Impacts; Transportation - Bus 

Service; Transportation - Current 

Train Traffic; Rail - Operations
Public Comments and Responses

Page 14 of 14

Response

RESPONSES REQUIRED

Date Topic(s) Comment

5/21/12 Rail - Freight Rail; Use of the Project I have long been in favor of a rail line across the busiest cities in Iowa. For one thing there are always 

college students who need to get back and forth from home to college. However we need to make 

sure that the passenger train does not sit in the Chicago rail yards - second to a freight train - as can 

heppen now - we have used the train. We go to Chicago a couple of times a year.

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning 

Study. Your comment has been submitted. Public comments provide valuable input and 

contribute to the development of a complete environmental analysis.

The Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and planning effort will take approximately 18 

months to complete. We will be collecting comments on the draft alternative analysis through 

May 21, 2012. All comment received will be reviewed and considered.

We appreciate your input and participation in the project.
From: Charles Smith

To: email@chicagotoomaha.com

Subject: Comments on the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report - Revised -Part 1

Date: Monday, May 21, 2012 5:42:25 PM

Attachments: Chicago to Omaha Exhibit 1.pdf

Chicago to Omaha Exhibit 2.pdf

TEMS for Iowa DOT - Chicago to Omaha Alternatives Analysis - 1998.pdf

Importance: High

Gentlepersons:

 I live in Villisca, Iowa. I am writing as a private individual. I apologize for

including so many references, but at the Council Bluffs Open House, it became

evident that not everyone had seen or had access to some of them, so I have

incorporated references to documents when available online and attached copies

where not generally available. Because of the size of some attachments, these

comments are being sent in multiple parts. 

 This revision supercedes my previous submission and I request that you please

address only the last revision of my comments you receive. I apologize for providing

more than one edition of comments, but have been trying to provide comments

within your time windows. 

 The Draft Alternatives Analysis Report

http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/pdfs/DraftAlternativeAnalysisReport.pdf

can be improved by 

 o being serious about higher speed rail and even high speed rail, 

 o being less pusillanimous in its approach to maximizing the population

served, 

 o paying editorial attention to not overstating what is being studied and

achieved,

 o carefully labelling the consultants and firms who contributed to the

report at least on the title page, and 

 o showing the actual values of the base in comparisons is included as

well the comparative values throughout chapters 6 and 7 most notably in tables like

those on pages 6-29, 6-31, 7-3 and 7-4 

 In seeking to maximize the overall benefit of rail service between Chicago and

greater Omaha, one needs to maximize the population served, particularly as one

moves further westward and one needs to maximize average speed over the route.

By following these two guidelines, although the capital costs increase with population

served and speed, there are INCREASING RETURNS TO SCALE as speed increases,

leading to reduced operational subsidies, then to the revenues fully covering

depreciation and replacement of equipment, and finally at high enough speed

leading to the revenues paying off the initial capital costs.

In support of these points, I include several documents.

 o A TEMS analysis of the economics of different speed regimes in the

DC to Hampton Roads area

 o The SNCF's deadly serious proposal for HSR200 in the midwest (They

called it 220 but they limited maximum operating speed to 200 mph)

 o A study by TEMS comparing results under HSR150 and HSR220
 o A table comparing passengers, speed, and revenues over the same

routes for current Amtrak, MWRRI, SNCF HSR200 , TEMS HSR150, TEMS HSR220,

and my CSS240. This is a preliminary draft from a detailed analysis forthcoming

within the next two months. The CSS240 service in the table assumes 240mph top

operating speed, .1g/2mphpersecond acceleration, and end point networking as

shown in the Omaha example below.

 The first two comments are directed toward the overall speed issue. The

remaining comments are directed toward significantly increasing the number of

people served west of Chicago by loosening the constraints on the choice of

alignment. First, by moving the termini from the center to the edge of the greater

Omaha area and the greater Chicago area. A well selected station configuration will

add over 300,000 people in Nebraska and 100,000 in Iowa to the service area and

increase the passengers crossing the Iowa-Nebraska border by 50 to 70 per cent.

Then, by revitalizing abandoned right-of-way, doing selective greenfield

construction, and running express and local service on different routes, another

600,000-plus people in Iowa can be added to the approximately 1,000,000 served by

route 4a.

1. SPEED - 

 Passenger perception of speed is driven by the overall elapsed time it takes to

complete their journey. While the curve or ridership to speed is relatively smooth, it

has two important knees. The first is when the end to end speed of the journey

including getting to station, waiting for train, ... is less than or equal to the driving

time. The second is when the end to end speed is less than or equal to that for air

travel; if one can get rail time within air gate-to-gate plus TSA 1 hour and match or

exceed frequency, rail quite effectively displaces air. 

 By pushing the speed being projected to somewhere between HSR220 and

HSR240, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that service to Omaha would

be fast enough to displace 60 plus percent of air service and about 17 percent of

auto trip. . Ridership over this long route at an average fare of 20 cents per mile,

would be sufficient to generate approximately $1 Billion per year in revenue and

operate profitably after paying all expenses and depreciation and paying back the

capital with interest using 30 year bonds at present federal rates. This study would

be far more interesting and worthwhile comparing top speeds of 79 mph, 110 mph,

and 240 mph; if that option exists, one would strongly recommend performing

analyses in those speed regimes in the later stages of this study.

 a. To attain good average speeds over the route, one needs to be able not

just to attain high speeds but to sustain high speeds. The performance of the

rolling stock is important, but the actual alignment, elevation, and condition of the

roadbed and signalling system are controlling.

 .1. The Employee Timetable shows elevation, curvature, ... for a

railroad. It would be helpful to have this information included as an appendix in the

next report in this series, if not in the present one.

 .2. It is often tempting to believe that one can speed up an alignment

merely by increasing the cant of the track in curves. This helps by optimizing the

tracks for a higher speed. When operating both passenger and freight service over

an alignment, the difference in proposed speeds is such that setting the cant at
optimum levels for passenger service will produce track that is so canted as to make

the freight operator at least uncomfortable and often legitimately lead him to reject

the proposed cant for reasons of safety.

 .3. As one speeds up service over an alignment, the need to straighten

curves rather than just bank the track, grows with the square of the speed. As a

result 

an important step in any evolutionary plan should be to straighten the alignment by

eliminating speed constraining curves as one improves and double tracks it. An

actually not unreasonable goal would be to eliminate all curves greater than 3

degrees (and outside of cities almost all curves of 0.5 degrees or more) as one

double tracks, installs cross overs, resurfaces, . . . Similarly one needs to eliminate

speed limitations on bridges . . . 

 .4. It is critically important to grade separate rail to rail interactions if at

all possible. Grade separation of rail to road (sometimes through road closure)

should also be pursued whenever alignment is significantly revised.

 .5. When running passengers over a smaller freight railroad like IAIS, it

may be economical to separate tracks by 40 feet and move to PTC over full

bidirectional CTC and operate passenger service at a higher speed than otherwise

expected.

 .6. Analysis of what is required to enable high average running speeds

(100 mph or better for conventional equipment; 200 mph or better for true high

speed equipment) all the way into Chicago and through the Quad Cities, Des Moines,

and Council Bluffs is necessary if good overall average times are to be achieved.

 b. The study is clearly stuck at a 110mph max speed. However, a step to

higher speed rail can be made by focusing on the average speed over the entire

run. Even with less than ideal track attention to two unmentioned characteristics of

the rolling stock can dramatically shorten overall journey times - 

 .1. The rate of Acceleration realized by the proposed rolling stock has

a dramatic effect on overall speeds and how many stops can be accommodated.

Specifying equipment capable of maintaining uniform accelerations and decelerations

of .1g (2mph per sec) all the way to top speed, and supporting that acceleration

and speed on a 2 per cent grade, significantly changes the selection of stopping

patterns and the potential running time. - A smoothly initiated and concluded .1g

acceleration;deceleration (i.e. one with smooth 3rd and 4th derivatives) is far more

comfortable for passengers than the jerky less than .025g acceleration/deceleration

often experienced with conventional rail rolling stock. And, an acceleration of less

than .15g, particularly when smoothly initiated and concluded, is low enough that it

will not interfere with passengers freedom of movement including standing. -

Equipment with .1g acceleration through the entire speed regime to 120 mph is

commercially available from German, Japanese, and Spanish suppliers. - Assuming

that the alignment and rolling stock support 120mph operating, accelerating and

decelerating at .1g a station stop adds 1min plus the dwell time in the station to the

journey. If one assumes level loading platforms, dwell times of 1min are practical

and dwell times of 1min30secs gracious if not leisurely. Assuming a 1min30sec

dwell time, and a 20 sec safety factor, adding a stop to a .1g capable 120 mph train

adds 2min50sec to the schedule. Thus, for example, one could add stops in

Atlantic, West Des Moines, and Davenport with a total increase in scheduled time of
8min30sec.

 .2. Passive or active TILT permits higher track super-elevation AND

significantly increases the realized speed when following more curved than desirable

alignments. It also increases passenger comfort. - Note the experience with Talgo

equipment in the Pacific Northwest, with Pendolino equipment in HelsinkiSt.Petersburg service, and with positionally-activated active tilt in Japanese narrowgage service.

 .3. Clearly achieving HSR is a phased effort. The rolling stock used to

extend the new Chicago to Quad Cities service to Iowa City should be compatible

with what Illinois is going to use from Chicago to Quad Cities. (One probably could

continue using this equipment and double Iowa ridership by extending the service

northward the 28 or so miles from Iowa City to Cedar Rapids and turning it around

there.) However, in later phases when service is being increased from twice per

day each way to higher frequencies and extended westward to Des Moines and

Omaha, equipment with better acceleration and curve speeds, needs to be very

strongly considered. In other services such an equipment choice has reduced

operating times up to 30%.)

 

2. Speed comparisons -

 I was struck by the number of people at the Council Bluffs open house who

explicitly believed that high speed rail is something significantly faster than

conventional rail or auto travel; they correctly intuited that high speed rail should be

competitive with air for distances up to five hundred miles, especially given the need

to add a TSA hour to gate-to-gate times. Further, they are confused by the

suggestion that a 70 or 90 or even 110 mph maximum speed represents even

higher speed rail. As shown below, the historic time from Chicago to Omaha for

conventional rail and for auto travel is around 7 and a half hours. If the proposed

service is not making the journey from Chicago to Omaha in significantly less time

than 7 hours, it is not in any way higher speed service than Midwesterners have

been experiencing for more than three quarters of a century.

 a. Historic Rail - Omaha is the virtual midpoint of Chicago to Denver

passenger service. By the late 1930's, when passenger rail service was still

PROFITABLE because it was faster and more reliable than competing modes of

transport, three railroads were competing for passengers from Chicago to Omaha.

 o From 1936 to 1952, Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy train #10, the

Denver Zephyr ran every day from Omaha to Chicago in 7 hours 51 minutes for

an average speed including stops of 63.44 mph.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track8/denverzephyr193809.html

 o The Chicago and North Western ran competitive service to Omaha

that continued westward on the Union Pacific. (In the years since UP has purchased

C&NW and this route is UP all the way to Chicago.) C&NW times between Chicago

and Omaha were most competitive for the "City" trains, which could run as long as

17 cars. In 1938, C&NW train #103 the City of Los Angeles westbound took 7

hours 36 minutes form Chicago to Omaha. C&NW train #104, the City of Los

Angeles eastbound took 7 hours 45 minutes from Omaha to Chicago.
http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track5/cityla193809.html

 o The Rock Island (officially Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific) had

notoriously twisty track and not always the best maintenance. The Rock Island also

lacked its own bridge across the Missouri River; they had to use the Union Pacific's

tracks from Council Bluffs to Omaha, which slowed things down. (The Rock Island

alignment is now owned by Metra from Chicago to Joliet and by IAIS the rest of the

way to Council Bluffs.) In spite of these adversities, the Rock Island introduced a

competing service the Rocky Mountain Rocket in 1939. Rock Island train #7 the

Rocky Mountain Rocket westbound took 9 hours from Chicago to Omaha via the

Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines and Council Bluffs. Rock Island train #8 The

Rocky Mountain Rocket eastbound took 8 hours 44 minutes Omaha to Chicago.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track8/rockymtrocket194106.html

 b. Today Amtrak serves only the former CB&Q route (now Burlington

Northern Santa Fe). Seventy-five years later, they have slowed down service on the

CB&Q alignment so that 

 o In 2012 Amtrak train #6, the California Zephyr eastbound, takes 9

hours 36 minutes; Amtrak train #5 the California Zephyr westbound takes 8 hours

45 minutes from Omaha to Chicago, still nearly an hour longer than the Denver

Zephyr took on the same tracks. 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1237405732505/1237405732505

 c. Proposed Rail - It is not clear that proposed services are going to match

even Amtrak's current leisurely timings. http://www.qcrail.com/Iowa%20CityQC%20feasibility%20study.pdf

 o The new service between Chicago and the Quad Cities will take

3 hours 52 minutes from Chicago to Moline, more than an hour longer than the

Rocky Mountain Rocket's 2 hours 47 mins more than 70 years ago.

 o When the new service is extended to Iowa City under Scenario A6,

BNSF-IAIS 79mph, found on p. 10 of the Executive Summary of the Feasibility

Study, it will take 4 hours 58 minutes to travel from Chicago to Iowa City, still

more than an hour longer that the Rocky Mountain Rocket's 3 hours 55

minutes, and without meal or beverage service. These times are longer even

though the alignment has been shortened by approximately 20 miles. (In fact, reestablishing any rail service between Iowa City, the Quad Cities and Chicago is an

important step. But, it is a first step, and in studying HSR from Chicago to Omaha a

series of FURTHER STEPS need to build upon this first step.)

 d. Auto Today - Google maps proposes legally driving the 468 miles from

Amtrak Station Omaha to Chicago Union Station in 7 hours 40 minutes. I and

many other drivers tend to make the journey in a bit less time. (The draft study

claims 8 hours 30 minutes driving time.)

 e. Air Today - Ramp-to-ramp times between Omaha and Chicago are

between 1 hour 20 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes, and the TSA hour seems here to

stay. So, any rail service making the journey in 2 hours 30 minutes or less is fully

competitive and should be able to garner 60 per cent or more of air travelers (30

percent or more are connections which are harder to displace.) Because of the time
getting from gate to take off, from take off to altitude, getting out of airport flight

patterns, ..., the time for almost any air journey is at least an hour 10 minutes,

which with TSA time, means two hours 10 minutes by rail is fully competitive, which

will make rail the dominant high speed mode for any journey less than the crossover point which would appear to be Omaha to Chicago, if rail is competitive Omaha

to Chicago.

3. THE ENDS OF THE LINE

 Ending an alignment in a downtown terminal almost always diminishes

ridership. So, fixing the termini of the Chicago to Omaha alignment beyond the

downtown station can VERY SIGNIFICANTLY increase ridership especially in lightly

loaded segments on the western end.

 a. The WESTERN TERMINUS - 

 The alignment from Chicago to Omaha does not end in Council Bluffs, IA, nor

should it end in today's Amtrak station in a less than ideal neighborhood near

downtown Omaha. The greater Omaha end of the study alignment should be in

downtown Lincoln, NE. One does not need to do a full environmental analysis West

of the Missouri River, but the study should include an estimate of the within

Nebraska traffic, the ridership across the Nebraska-Iowa border, and the ridership

consequences farther east of two cases - first, terminating in the existing less than

ideally located downtown Omaha station and, second, making the following station

stops (from West to East) in the greater Omaha area. 

 As no alignment and no stations are presently proposed for the greater Omaha

area, I offer the following proposal Illustrated in Exhibit 2 attached.

 o Lincoln downtown

 o Lincoln suburban (at the edge of the city which is incredibly well

defined)

 o Omaha suburban (at approximately the intersection of I80 and the UP

mainline)

 o Omaha downtown (on Dodge Street, probably at 13th)

 o Eppley Airfield station (either subsurface or elevated but absolutely

between the existing air terminal and the parking garage;nota bene, Eppley is

actually in Iowa)

 o Council Bluffs (may be omitted for expresses once the express cut off

is completed)

 The preferred alignment from Lincoln to Omaha downtown station

follows the existing Santa Fe alignment straightening as required from Lincoln

Downtown to its divergence from US Route 6 at approximately County Road 84.

Continue parallel to Route 6 making a high speed convergence with I-80 somewhere

north of Fairview Road. Continue along I-80 using the median as right of way if

necessary until turning into Omaha suburban station just south of the UP elevated

east-west line. Coming out of Omaha suburban station, follow the UP elevated line

with appropriate straightening until diverting northward along 13th Street to the new

Omaha downtown station at 13th and Dodge. (The UP elevated line was built for

four tracks and the UP seems to be using only one on it at the moment. It could be

possible to get their cooperation in letting two tracks be for passenger only in
exchange for building and signalling the freight alignment back to two tracks as

well.)

 Phased implementation of new alignments out of Eppley would be

desirable. Initially, the alignment would proceed southward from Eppley Airfield

station, then westward across the Missouri River on a rebuilt CN railway bridge,

going south to Council Bluffs and finally heading northeastward on the IAIS (former

Rock Island) alignment. Nota bene, use of trainsets with control at both ends will

greatly facilitate this routing. In a later phase, the alignment could be shortened by

several miles and accelerated even more by proceeding northeastward from Eppley

Airport station directly to a new bridge across the Missouri River, thence through

significant civil engineering works to a high speed intersection with the IAIS

proceeding northeastward between Underwood and Neola)

 Benefits - One would expect that extending the service from Omaha to

Lincoln, and adding stations in Council Bluffs, Eppley, and Omaha suburban to add

50 to 80 per cent to the number of passengers crossing the Nebraska-Iowa line.

One would also expect a measurable regional traffic between Omaha and Lincoln

that could fill otherwise empty train-sets during morning and evening commute

hours. Factors leading to these results include the following.

 .1. Serving more people - The Census 2011 population of

Lincoln MSA is 302,157. Comparable population of Omaha MSA is 742,185,

excluding the three Iowa counties which add 123,145.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_census_statistical_areas

 .2. As the data from passenger service to Detroit and Boston

illustrate, having interstate trains make passenger stops going into and out of

metropolitan areas can increase overall passenger loads by 30-50% for each side of

the city served. In planning stops for the greater Omaha area. One would suggest

stops in Lincoln, suburban Omaha, downtown Omaha, and Eppley Airfield (which is

actually in Iowa). Connections to the south including Bellevue and to the east

including Council Bluffs, need to be made using other intercity rail alignments and

regional rail services.

 .3. Factors that generate passenger traffic in excess of that

predicted by raw population include the following -

 (a). sites of large university (For example, Ann Arbor, MI)

- The University of Nebraska is located in Lincoln has 24,593 students. (The most

important schools for seminars and athletic events for Nebraska are Iowa State in

Ames and U of Iowa in Iowa City.)

 (b). state capital - Lincoln is the capital of the state of

Nebraska; (The heaviest in-state traffic comes from Omaha; the most important

interstate relations of Nebraska are with Iowa whose capital is Des Moines)

 (c). average wealth - Lincoln, excluding students, is more

prosperous per capita than Omaha

 .4. Regional connections - 

 (a). Lincoln and Omaha are close enough to generate
commuter traffic. (The Nebraska Transit Corridors Study prepared by Wilbur

Smith and Associates

for the Nebraska Transit and Rail Advisory Council and the Nebraska Department of

Transportation in 2003 http://www.nebraskatransportation.org/docs/ntrac-final.pdf

shows that even a minimal service running slower than automobiles would generate

140,000 to 200,000 passengers per year. A more frequent service running above

100 mph with .1 g acceleration/deceleration, should generate easily three times that

traffic, i.e. 420,000 to 600,000 passengers per year. With a little artful use of

equipment laying over, one can generate significant commuter revenue on the light

end of the passenger load factors.) 

 (b). Eppley Field which serves Omaha, is the nearest

major airport to Lincoln. Travelers from within a 150 - 200 mile radius of Omaha,

including those from Lincoln, Fremont,Sioux City, Grand Island, and Sioux Falls, need

a connection to Eppley.

 .5. Rough Quantification - 

 (a). Extending GREATER OMAHA service to Lincoln will

increase greater Omaha passengers crossing the Missouri River by at least 38% and

Omaha-induced induced passenger miles by at least 41%.

 (b). Adding Omaha suburban station and Council Bluffs

station will each increase greater Omaha passengers crossing the Missouri River and

Omaha-induced passenger miles by at least 10% for a total increase in passenger

miles of at least 20%.

 (c). The consequences of adding Eppley Airport Station are

somewhat less clear, but for purposes of analysis let us assume that service directly

into the airport terminal will add another 5 to 15% and arbitrarily select an 8%

increase in greater Omaha passengers and Omaha-induced passenger miles.

 (d) Utilization of stored trainsets to provide commuter

service between Lincoln and Omaha at an average speed of 100 mph including

stops, and enabling through the day connections between Lincoln and Omaha using

Intercity trains, should capture an additonal 220,000 passenger boardings (110,000

round trips) for a distance of 60 miles (should be less but am using current BNSF

alignment mileage) or an additional 6.6 million passenger miles annually.

 (e) In 1998, TEMS prepared an Iowa Rail Route

Alternatives Analysis for the Iowa Department of Transportation. (Because this

study has not been available online for some time and is not cited in the 2012 Draft

Alternatives Analysis, I am appending a copy.) Hardly surprisingly, TEMS arrived at

the 2012 Draft Alternatives Analysis route 4A, and had passenger load estimates 10

-20% higher than those of the 2012 Draft Alternatives Analysis. (TEMS p. 94 , use

the 2010 estimates; Draft Alternatives Analysis use the 110mph estimates. The

TEMS study was notable for the care with which it dealt with segmental loading and

the overall contribution to passenger miles and revenues of different segments of

the route. Using the 2010 numbers on pages 92-94, one can calculate the

contributions to overall passengers and passenger miles of three segments. Then

one can show the effect of changes a through c above.
Route Segment Passengers Passenger Miles Passengers Passenger

Miles Passengers Passenger Miles

 original original w/ a, b, and

c w/ a, b, and c w/ commuters w/commuters

Quad Cities East 599,000 79.7million 599,000 

 79.7million 599,000 79.7million

Iowa City - Des Moines 284,000 79.9million 284,000 

 79.9million 284,000 79.9million

Greater Omaha 108,000 48.0million 180,000 

 80.0million 400,000 86.6million

TOTAL 991,000 207.6million 1,063,000

 239.6million 1,283,000 246.2million

The effect of properly serving the greater Omaha area, is to increase overall revenue

by 16-19 per cent, at an increased capital cost of less than 12 percent. 

 

 6. History - In the once upon a time when railroads actually expected

to make a profit from passenger service, the CB&Q did continue its Chicago to

Omaha services through downtown Omaha and terminated them in Lincoln. Doing

so might make financial sense again.

 7. Editorial - While not doing an environmental analysis, one should

generate an appendix to the next report comparing the ridership by segment from

Lincoln to Omaha for this proposed station structure to simple termination at a

single station in downtown Omaha, and doing no other analysis west of the Missouri

River. HNTB did something very similar in Appendix A11 to the July 2007 Ohio Hub

Full Report. Because this report is difficult to locate online, a copy of the report and

appendices is forwarded as Attachment 1 to these comments under separate cover.

 2. The EASTERN TERMINUS - 

 The alignment should continue through Chicago Union Station to a station

under O'Hare International Airport and perhaps one beyond O'Hare. In addition,

there should be a connecting service between either Chicago Union Station or a

suburban Chicago station and Midway Airport. The O'Hare,Chicago North Suburban

station is likely to add another 10% to overall passenger count on the route.

 The SNCF argues for these connections eloquently in its Midwest HSR220

(Actually HSR200 through self-imposed limitation) Proposal of 14 SEP 2009, MWRRA

in its planning also at least pays lip service to these inter-modal connections. The

FRA encourages such intermodal connections by treating them as benefits in

considering construction subsidies. Aside from its intermodal role, the O'Hare

connection also enables the many travelers in Chicago's northwest suburbs to get to

the train without having to go downtown. One would expect the O'Hare (or beyond)

eastern terminus to add another 15 per cent to ridership initially and as much as 25

percent if HSR220 or better service is run over the Chicago to Omaha route.

 ( While not directly germane to the location of the eastern terminus, it is

important that the SNCF proposal not only shows that one can have a positive cash

flow while covering all operating expenses and depreciation; if one redoes the

arithmetic so as not to gild the French lily, the report also shows that revenues are
sufficient to pay off the capital costs in 40 years assuming historic inflation. Because

the SNCF proposal for the midwest is sometimes difficult to locate online, a copy is

forwarded under separate cover as Attachment to these comments.)

4. Using ABANDONED RIGHT-OF-WAY and GREENFIELD Construction need

to be included in the terms of reference.

 a. Revitalizing abandoned right of way provides opportunities to get

through otherwise impassable urban areas. It provides connections where current

operating lines are either absent or indirect. Also, construction on abandoned right

of way avoids property acquisition delay while permitting construction to full

operating standards without having to work around ongoing operations. Not having

to work around ongoing operations can make re-activation of abandoned right-ofway less expensive than upgrading tracks currently in operation. - Because of Iowa's

history of railroad overbuilding in the late 19th Century, there are unusually large

amounts of abandoned right-of-way for possible use.

 b. One often needs greenfield construction to connect one alignment to

another, even where alignments intersect, as the state of Illinois is now doing at

Wyanet. One also needs greenfield construction to connect new points to the

alignment.

 c. The relative time consumed by the passenger end-to-end, not just on the

railroad, directly impacts the passenger's perception of the convenience and

therefore the desirability of traveling by train. Frequency of service, station location

and convenience, and actual train speed are key determiners of end-to end time.

How fast a train goes is limited by the alignment of the track over which it's

operating. So, straight and non-conflicted alignments are critical. Often one can

dramatically increase the speed of trains between two points with (sometimes

modest) greenfield construction to shorten, straighten and grade separate.

 Two examples of shortening the right of way follow. (All distances calculated

using the North American Railroad Map, and adding the segment lengths) 

 .1. The IAIS (formerly Rock Island) alignment from Des Moines to Iowa

City is 119.9 miles long. A high speed, nonstop service should follow a greenfield

direct alignment approximately 108.8 miles long from Des Moines to Iowa City

shown as alignment 4e on Exhibit 1 attached. This greenfield direct alignment

would shorten the route by 11 miles. 

 .2. The IAIS (formerly Rock Island) alignment from Moline to Wyanet is

49.7 miles long. The BNSF (formerly CB&Q) alignment from Wyanet to Mendota is

29.7miles long. Used end-to-end, this alignment from Moline to Mendota is 79.4

miles long. A high-speed, nonstop service should follow a tangent greenfield

alignment 66.4 miles long. Thus, a greenfield direct alignment would shorten the

route by 13 miles.

 (It should be noted that the alignment from Chicago to Wyanet is also

used by the service from Chicago to Galesburg and thence to Quincy and would be

used by high speed service from Chicago to Kansas City. Thus running the longer

route to Wyanet might make HSR240 more affordable on all three routes.)
Taking these two examples together along with the direct Eppley to IAIS route,

straightening between Atlantic and Des Moines, and straightening between Iowa City

and Davenport can reduce the overall length of the express rail trip from Chicago to

Omaha to near 430 miles, making 2 hour 15 minute journeys possible with HSR240

rolling stock.

 d. The principal rationale for not revitalizing abandoned right of way centers

on the process delays due to needing approval of environmental impacts and

avoidance of property taking. Simplification of this process appears to be an issue

on the table as a possibility for the transportation bill now in Conference. Even

should it fail, both parties are friendly to it, and it is likely to be approved within a

matter of years. Further, the highway builders do not seem to have nearly the

difficulty with environmental impediments that railway construction has.

Adjustments in process to more closely match FRA practice to FHWA practice are not

impossible, and should be sought.

5. PARALLEL RIGHTS OF WAY need to be included in the terms of reference.

 a. Complementary alignments - When alignments are separated by a

sufficient time and distance, i.e., more than 25 miles in Iowa, they may be largely

independent so that operation of both may provide significant benefits in public

service. Should an Omaha to Chicago passenger service go across Iowa north of the

former Burlington Route, it may be that continued, and perhaps increased, service

on the Burlington Route would be complementary, because it serves places not

served by the alternate route.

 b. Sometimesnonstop service should take a shorter path than a "less express"

service that stops at stations not necessarily on or near to the express line. Between

Detroit and Chicago, for example, one stopping alignment through South Bend, Fort

Wayne, and Toledo is significantly longer than the non-stop alignment; it adds

nearly an hour to the trip, but provides service to nearly 2 million otherwise

unserved people. Using different express and stopping routes is particularly

important because the speed of non-stop service has a halo effect on perception of

stopping service and resultant passenger use. -

 .1. Lengthening the stopping route - Two examples

 .a. By adding 40 miles to Alignments 4 and 4a, the existing IAIS

alignment from Des Moines to Iowa City, one can create new alignment 4b which

is125.9 miles long, adds three intermediate stops - Ames, Marshalltown, and Cedar

Rapids airport, and serves 473,170 more people (Ames 148,458; Marshalltown

39,555; Cedar Rapids 285,157) than alternative 4a for a total of 1,507,292. This

alignment is shown in red on Exhibit 1 attached. To put alignment 4b together one

does the following

 (1). From Des Moines to Ankeny, revitalize abandoned Fort

Dodge, Des Moines and Southern right of way. (Consider a possible suburban

station stop in Ankeny.)

 (2). From Ankeny to Ames, revitalize abandoned Chicago

and North Western right of way.

 (3). From Ames to Cedar Rapids, either
 (a). Follow the present Union Pacific (formerly

Chicago and North Western) mainline. or if, as is often the case, UP would rather not

be bothered by passenger traffic, then

 (b). Divert from the abandoned Chicago and

Northwestern algnment at Slater and build a greenfield alignment due north into a 6

mile radius turn eastward onto parallel Lincoln way alignment. Follow the Lincoln

Way alignment without any turning to a new Ames Station east of the intersection of

Lincoln way with University Boulevard. (It may be necessary to trench/tunnel this

alignment through Iowa State University and to elevate it through the rest of

Ames.) Continue along this perfectly tangent alignment with no turning whatsoever

to a new Marshalltown Station on "Business 30". (It may be necessary to elevate

the tracks for several miles along "Business 30".) Continue with no turning on this

perfectly tangent alignment until it makes a 6 mile radius turn onto state highway 94

which it follows slightly straightened to a new downtown Cedar Rapids Station. -

This straightened alignment saves approximately 7.8 miles over the UP route to

downtown Cedar Rapids. 

 (4). From Cedar Rapids Station proceed south on the

partially abandoned former Rock Island alignment.

 (5). Make as large a radius a turn as possible onto a

greenfield alignment proceeding due south along C street. After crossing Pheasant

Run Road, make a curve of the greenfield alignment over to run southward

straightened-parallel to I380.

 (6). Where I380 intersects the IAIS, make as large

diameter a turn as possible onto the IAIS and follow that through a possible new

station between Melrose and Finkbane in Ames to the existing station at Wright

Street, Ames.

 b. By adding 66 miles to alignments 4 and 4a, one can create a

new alignment 4c that goes through Ames,takes a greenfield alignment to Cedar

Falls where it stops at the new station on University Avenue at Iowa Northern, then

follows straightened existing routes to Waterloo, then Cedar Rapids, and Iowa City.

This alignment adds Cedar Falls/Waterloo and subtracts Marshalltown from the

population served, 598,971 more people than alternative 4a for a total of 1,633,093.

It is shown in purple on Exhibit A attached.

 c. One would also suggest 

 c. Quantifying the consequences,

Route Segment Passengers Passenger Miles Passengers

 Passenger Miles Passengers Passenger Miles

 original original w/

Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Ames w/ Omaha and Omaha Commuters

Quad Cities and East 599,000 79.7million 599,000 

 79.7million 599,000 79.7million

Iowa City through West Des Moines 284,000 79.9million 

 635,000 179.7million 635,000 179.7million

Greater Omaha 108,000 48.0million 108,000 

 48.0million 400,000 86.6million

Total 991,000 207.6million 1,342,000

 307.4million 1,634,000 346.0million 
 .2. Were true high speed service to be implemented from Omaha to

Chicago, one would expect super-expresses competing with air service from Omaha

and Des Moines to Chicago to take the 108.8 mile straight alignment between Des

Moines and Iowa City and stopping trains to take the 77mile longer alignment

(36minutes longer including stops and margin at HS240, 52minutes at HS110)

through Ames, Cedar Falls, Waterloo, and Cedar Rapids. An alternative approach

would be to have synchronized cross platform transfers at Des Moines and Iowa City

to and from locals following the stopping route.

 .3. I am embarrassed that I made a significant error in recording the

route length data before coming to the open house in Council Bluffs. I apologize to

any whom I presented the fallacious result, and thank them for their courtesy and

patience.

If these comments need clarification or I can be of further help, please feel free to

contact me by phone or email. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles Smith

POBox25, Villisca, IA 50864

712-826-3848

altos@netins.net

 

 
... odw.ud, lA 

5+-41-~tn" 'S_ 

\.\.1-t? s \- Oe 1 M 'P ""'e-:. 

Oe b fV\o\ Yt --e..'S 

A A)'\ w1.e.. k'e"" -:::. ~ 

ed"''"' FA-t \ ~ vJcL t e,- \. ~ D 

eeJar ~'P ,'d 6 

:s::: 0 '-(.) c:.... c. \-~ 

L~L~ \: AVV'to.V'- c.. \ ~ ... "' "'-L \. 

N e-.VtoV\ 

North American Railroad Map 

Railway Station Productions, LLC http://www.Railroadmap.com 

• .. · Hr . lA 

. . R<tlnbed\, lA 

... 

Gl.1db10ok. lA 

-----~~ .... - -~~~4 ~.D . -:tAU • .... •· 

. 

lndi .J lo~ A 

. Pen • . lA 

Tro~ cy. IA 

.. -· ·-· Keot.1 , IA 

10MI 

.. 
CN - Network Map 

!Map data 

~S~\ 

2 of3 --

http://cnebusiness.geomapguide.ca/ 

-----------------------~-------- --- -- -·---

v.J6y\.-. 

~..:: -s l . - t 

.•6' n. .••••••. 

·' • ( 11 ; 

• 

1 \leep•ng 

.U 6 
RESPONSE: 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Alternative Route Analysis 

effort for the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study.

With the inception of high-speed intercity passenger rail funding in 2009 and additional funds being 

authorized in 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has developed the guidelines for the grant 

applications and passenger rail corridor planning studies, individual projects, and service development 

programs. Any study undertaken must be prepared in accordance with the Federal guidelines in order to 

be eligible for future federal funding when available. 

Based on an application submitted by Iowa DOT in 2010 for high-speed intercity passenger rail funds, the

FRA has authorized $1 million, with a state match of $1 million, for a total of $2 million to produce a 

Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan consisting of a Tier I Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Chicago to Omaha corridor in compliance with FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (64 Federal Register 289545, dated May 26, 1999) and the Council of Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-08) and a Service Development Plan 

(requirements listed in the Federal Register 2010 Notice of Funding Availability for High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Programs, Volume 75, No. 126, available at 

www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/PubAffairs/2010-15992.pdf - 84k - 2010-10-28).

The Chicago to Omaha corridor is a major component of the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) 

and is one of ten federally-designated high-speed rail corridors in the United States. The MWRRS is 

designed as an integrated system operating intercity passenger trains at speeds up to 110 mph. The 

MWRRS corridors interconnect in Chicago to enable passengers to begin their journey on one corridor 

and end on another. Individual corridors have intermodal connections at major stations to enable the 

passengers to connect between long-distance and short-distance transportation modes. The intent of 

MWRRS is to use common rail passenger equipment, marketing, ticket systems, and operations 

management to provide a seamless transportation system for the traveling public.

In 2010, the FRA authorized $230 million in high-speed rail corridor funding for the Chicago to Iowa 

City segment of the corridor. This service is currently under development for implementation in the first 

phase between Chicago and Quad Cities and is a component of one of the potential Chicago to Omaha 

alternatives. Capitalizing improvements made on federal- and state-funded rail programs will facilitate in 

expanding the passenger rail network throughout the United States. 

While there is a universe of rail corridor possibilities that could be evaluated as alternatives, the 

alternatives that were evaluated were identified by the FRA and Iowa DOT as feasible based on the 

funding available for studying the Chicago to Omaha service: 

1. Illinois Central: CN via Rockford, Illinois, and Dubuque, Waterloo and fort Dodge, Iowa 

2. Chicago & Northwestern: Union Pacific via Clinton, Cedar Rapids, and Ames, Iowa 

3. Milwaukee Road: CP from Chicago to Sabula, Iowa and BNSF from Bayard, Iowa, to Omaha, 

and abandoned except for several small stubs in between 

4. Rock Island: CSX from Chicago to Utica, Illinois, and Iowa Interstate Railroad via Moline, 

Illinois, and Iowa City and Des Moines, Iowa 

5. BNSF Railway: BNSF via Galesburg, Illinois, and Burlington and Ottumwa, Iowa 

The No-build and Route 4-A alternatives are being carried forward in the Tier I Service Level EIS. The 

No-Build Alternative will be used as the basis for comparison. Route 4-A, a combination of Routes 4 and 
5, is composed of Route 5 between Chicago and Wyanet, Illinois, and Route 4 between Wyanet and 

Council Bluffs. The Route 4-A will be carried forward because, compared to other route alternatives, it:

• Meets project purpose and need.

• Has low construction complexity and 

low construction costs.

• Has modest grade crossing complexity.

• Does not require a new bridge over the 

Mississippi River.

• Is the shortest route alternative. 

• Has close to the shortest travel time.

• Serves a large population.

• Has a direct connection to Union Station 

in downtown Chicago. 

• Has no unreasonable environmental 

resource issues.

The Tier I EIS for the Chicago to Omaha corridor is being prepared to make high-level decision for the 

program evaluating routing and service alternatives and program phasing. This document will 

incorporate the purpose and need for the program; alternatives analyzed including selection of the 

preferred alternative; affected environment and consequences; comments and coordination; next steps; list 

of preparers and references.

The next phase of the program (not funded) will include preliminary engineering and Tier II 

environmental documents for specific infrastructure improvements on the corridor including stations and 

maintenance facility(ies). Tier II NEPA documents and preliminary engineering will be completed 

providing sufficient detail to support obligations for final design and construction for site specific 

improvements and implementation of service on the corridor. 

The host railroad’s design criteria will be used to meet FRA Class VI requirements for 110 mph 

operations on the Chicago to Omaha corridor. Amtrak design criteria (MW 1000) will supplement the 

host railroad’s criteria if none is available for FRA Class VI track. Also, other railroad industry 

guidelines, such as AREMA and APTA, along federal, state and local codes will apply to the 

development of the design for the Chicago to Omaha passenger rail corridor infrastructure including 

highway/rail crossings, stations and maintenance facilities.

Buy American provisions have been established for the federally-funded high-speed intercity passenger 

rail programs under the Buy America provision at 49 U.S.C. § 24405(a) which applies to all PRIIA 

authorized spending, including all ARRA funds and FY 2010 DOT Appropriations Act funds. It is the 

intent of this program that high-speed and intercity passenger rail infrastructure components and 

passenger equipment can and should be manufactured in the United States. The FRA Buy American 

guidelines can be found on the FRA’s website at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/251.shtml. 

We encourage you to continue to stay informed on the progress of the Chicago to Omaha Regional 

Passenger Rail System Planning Study through updates posted on the project website at 

www.chicagotoomaha.com. Future public meetings/hearings on the draft EIS for the Route 4-A 

Alternative are scheduled for early December 2012.